Talk:Loving Female Authority

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2008. The result of the discussion was redirect to Female dominance.

Removed POV tags

POV tags were removed from this article, and the section specifically pointed to remains more or less unchanged. However no comments about the the tags were put on this page. This was because the person who put them in believed them to be self explanatory (see Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Loving Female Authority), a view that I share.

I still do not think that the article conforms to a neutral point of view. In my opinion the article contains weasel terms, peacock terms and vanity. For example in the section "Female-Led Relationships" user Paigeharrison starts by describing the author Paige Harrison rather then the term to be defined. Bergsten 22:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also agree. POV is a problem here. I may try to take this up as a member of the taskforce. Still undecieded. Should I attempt to correct grammer and POV? If not please post here or at my user page. Eagle

Will repost the POV tags along with grammer tags. Eagle 21:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am interested in a wife=led relationship, and I have been for at least a decade. Still, I think this article uses blanket assumptions regarding the facts that these types of relationships are so common, and that there is a negative backlash against them. I feel this is not the case. I feel wikipedia leans to the left more often than not, and this view is evident in the presuppositions of many articles, LFA included.

Interesting any other veiws I may take this up as a member of the clean-up taskforce. Yes or No on this Idea. I will make up my mind on December 10

Untill than I can try and keep tabs.

Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (Paige Harrison) will be happy to enter into a dialogue with anyone about improving this stub. I am also happy to chat by telephone about my thought concerning the Female-Led lifestyle. I believe it is highly relevant approach as a lifestyle choice for both men and women to become aware of. The lifestyle is intentional and has many offshoots that are applicable to both married and single women. This lifestyle approach will continue to develop as the realities and notions for what is normal for women is rapidly changing. I will continue to enhance and improve what has been written and welcome anyones input. paigeharrison

One problem is the view that female predominance is the wave of the future which will soon sweep the nation is fairly subjective, yet seemed to be presented as unquestioned fact. I did a lot of low-level rewriting. If anyone feels the need to remove any templates, then by all means, do so. AnonMoos 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

paigeharrison, Good Job. Thanks for the NPOV.

Edited on Eagle (talk) (desk)

Grammer only, no content was changed Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were removed agian, If anyone thinks NPOV is a problem, please put the tags back on. I am in the middle, as I have found slight problems. I belive that they will be edited out in the future and are not a problem.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the article looks fine to me, I am going to go and work on other articlesEagle (talk) (desk) 17:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless

This article is useless and is a waste of valuable space on the servers. Can someone tell me why there is even an article on this?--Moosh88 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above user made the edit: [1], which suggests this is a hatred of D/S lifestyle rather than any reasonable belief that this article is unnecessary. Mdwh 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit as a joke, because this article is a joke. So since you seem to be involved with this article, why don't you answer my question? What is the purpose of this article? It's just advertising some ladies book, which is not even mainstream.--Moosh88 03:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it being argued that this should be merged with one of the D/s articles such as Female dominance, and I wouldn't object to this. Perhaps someone else can explain if this is a sufficiently different concept to require a separate article. Alternatively, please feel free to suggest a change through the proper channels (eg, proposing for deletion) rather than vandalising the article. Mdwh 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this article being merged with a more general bdsm article. Either one of us can bring this to a vote, it doesn't matter to me. A merge would make this article relavent and thus there would be no reason for its deletion.--Moosh88 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed

The 'Female Led' section was a book discussion, and read suspiciously like someone's essay. This makes it original research. I've excised it down to one paragraph. I think the article is worth keeping, though. Proto||type 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing can reasonably be said for "Around her finger"--a summary of a particular methodology, though it does mention alternatives. Needs at least some kind of sourcing--even if only to posts--&there might not be anyway of insertingt hem except on the talk page. I'm not attempting to do this right now. DGG (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slanted point of view

this article represents wikipedia's liberal bias. predictably, any article on such a topic will be treated with reverence, for its anti-establishment bent.

i am actually very supportive of such a lifestyle, and wish to be in one, yet i still find such drivel to be self-congratulatory, self-aggrandizing, and reflecting the anti-male, anti-father sentiment that has, unfortunately, made lots of headway in American society. And in that society, that's a point of view that will be lauded (and defended) by cubicle-bound web geeks.

Look: women are great (how can we afford to say anything otherwise these days?). They can run a household, they can do this, that and the other thing. Been there, done that. We get it. But jeez, if there was ever a biased, mythologized, over-romanticized image of women, that gets everyone's collective panties in a bunch, this is it.

everybody seems to salivate at the thought of women controlling men, and that's a litmus test that indicates our heathen society is just too damn ignorant and reactionary.

yes, paige harrison, it can be great that women lead relationships. (yawn). but, in reality, it's pretty rare, as women today are gaining in the office, yet relying cowardly on their learned submissive roles when it profits them. Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.54.103 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific concrete practical susggestions as to how this article can be improved? AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

curious, that everyone tends to think the WP bias is against whatever happens to be their position. Myself, I think the coverage of topics in human sexuality is timid, inadequate, restricted by the limitation of acceptable information sources and outmoded concepts of notability, and that Wikipedia discussion of such articles display great discomfort with the concepts, and sometimes even arguments that they don't really exist. It ofcourse does not help that the available sources of information tend to be uncritical and propagandistic. I've defended such a variety of these articles that at least I can't be accused of bias on my own account, as no one person could do all of them. And being dependent on second-hand sources of information, I am all the more aware of their limitations.

In that connection, the first step is not to remove the links to external sources that in practice seem to provide most of the readily available information. I've restored two of the standard ones that were just deleted, and plan to re-examine the others. Please don't redelete without discussion.,per WP:CRD. DGG (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]