Jump to content

Talk:Men's spaces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poorly Written

[edit]

This entry is not encyclopaedic. This entire article is Queer/Gender Theory jargon, and should be framed in the context of the theorists who are responsible for the ideas presented. Furthermore, examples of the theory should be provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.95.183 (talk)

It also sounds like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Aleta Sing 18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It does sound somewhat like an essay. But I don't agree that it's all queer theory, it's also anthropological. In any case, it needs an overhaul. — Becksguy (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prod objection (revised)

[edit]

this article does need serious attention (ideally from someone with more knowledge of non-westernized societies than me  :-/ ), but I think it deserves a chance IMHO. removed prod notice as instructed within the template. Outsider80 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse prod removal. Agree that the article does need much work, but there are serious RS provided and the concept is notable. See anthropologists (such as Margaret Mead) and sociologists. — Becksguy (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western View

[edit]

Finding one article that says that manspaces marginalise women does not constitute "the western view", just that of one sociologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.156.3 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section claims:

"The westernized view deems men's spaces as discriminatory toward the rights of women [8], and therefore fit for abolition.[9] This western standard generally does not apply toward women's spaces, which are viewed as beneficial for women."

The cited sources do not support the claims made here. Citation 8 is a link to one conference on engineering workplace culture as a male space. This one conference about one profession cannot be said to represent a monolithic "westernized view" of men's spaces. Citation 9 is a link to a review of six films about subjects fleeing or overcoming oppressive circumstances. This review explicitly notes that "Rarely do [the film-makers] comment on, or challenge, what's happening, even in the most extreme emotional circumstances. The story tells itself through those who are living it," effectively not supporting the claim that it is the "westernized view" that men's spaces are "fit for abolition." Even if these films did advocate for the abolition of men's spaces, these handful films would hardly represent "the westernized view."

The second sentence is so vague and non-specific as to be virtually meaningless and could be improved with an appropriate citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agregor1 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the objections about misrepresentation of the sources used in the "Western View" section. Also, the last sentence, "This western standard generally does not apply toward women's spaces, which are viewed as beneficial for women.", is entirely unsupported by any sources. Citations are definitely necessary for such a significant claim like that. Until it can be rewritten with NPOV in a way the is supported by and accurately reflects the meaning of authoritative sources, I have deleted the entire section/paragraph. It had numerous, significant flaws and had an editorializing tone that is not encyclopedic.
— CFWS 67.170.133.232 (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newsvine

[edit]

This article seems to have been pasted from http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/06/1957783-heterosexualization-of-men-and-their-spaces (which dates to October 2008, so it can't be that they copied from us). I suspect the author of the both articles is the same person, but it's still considered a copyright violation if we cannot prove that. I will contact the user named "Masculinity". —Soap— 22:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems that the whole subdomain http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/ is of the same author. —Soap— 22:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this was copied without clear authorization, we need to wipe and rewrite the article from scratch. And frankly, I think that would be a good idea just from a quality and neutrality standpoint: this article has "IMHO" written all over it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/ just now redirected for me to http://www.nbc.com/ or maybe it was nbcnews.com. That doesn't necessarily mean the original owner lost the domain, as a domain owner can easily redirect their own site to anywhere they want. User_Talk:MichaelCrawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E02:3C3E:98AF:59E8:F429:A2AE (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Men's spaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Men's spaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like someone's fantasy

[edit]

Nothing is cited and I'm getting a pretty strong LGBT fantasy vibe from this. Can someone nominate this article for deletion or rewrite it or something? I've never edited Wikipedia before so I've got no idea how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.30.185.86 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth saving

[edit]

I have converted this page into a redirect to sex segregation. WP:MERGETEXT states, emphasis added, Don't just redirect the source page without copying any content if any good content from the source page exists. No such content exists here.

The article has no less than 7 article level problem tags, some of which are nearly 11 years old, and inline tags are sprinkled liberally through the text. I have read the article and the quotations in its ref notes, and I concur with every one of these tags, and more.

The article has 73.6% authorship by User:Masculinity (it's effectively higher, since the other 26.4% includes lots of Internet Archive links and problem tags). I have become very familiar with this user's work; it appears to be focused on promulgating fringe theories about - what else? - masculinity. [1][2][3] His writing as a rule makes unsupported assertions, uses poor sources, and makes statements that are not in the alleged sources. These exact same problems exist here, which is why this article has been tagged so much - and many more could be added.

Since the content consists entirely of original research, there is nothing to preserve or merge. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank-you from me for that. I ran across this page a full twelve years ago (see above) and felt much the same, but couldn't really find the words to express what I wanted to say. The copyvio was definitely not the only problem. —Soap— 17:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men%27s_spaces&oldid=1137003186"