This is an archive of past discussions about Mansplaining. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
I don't want to reference Wikipedia as a source, but we have found her article-worthy concerning her long and varied career as a vocal journalist. And both of the references only have short sentences before them. We could have a huge quote in quotemarks and indentation like ones at Political Correctness and it wouldn't be undue, so why are two small but different sentences overdue? They clearly describe two different things, so cutting out would cut out the different one. I also find it funny only the more critical one is the target here and not the more neutral one. Mind you, we quote and reference Rebecca Solnit's opinion pieces (so declared by LA Times) multiple times. Is she undue? Is Lily Rothman undue in the lead? Why are they different? Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, this clearly belongs at the talk section concerning the same matter, but have it your way then if you so wish to force this to be at the bottom of the talk page. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
We quote and reference Solnit's pieces because they're the ones that coined the term (and are therefore the focus of the article). Either way, my main question is why we're dividing our citations about Young's opinion into two separate paragraphs in different places. I don't disagree with citing her once, but citing her repeatedly in two separate places means that the section is unduly dominated by her views in a way that minimizes the opinion of all other critics. Why do you object to combining them into a single sentence covering both pieces, at the very least? --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is them being apart the issue then? I placed the two short sentences into a word counting tool and do you know what I got? 62 words. We list the surname Solnit 6 times in the article, not counting the times it's listed in the sources. The way you presented your way of "combining" the sentences was just cutting out most of the more critical one. The sentences are so separate and uncombinable that you can pretty much just place them after one another. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
After reviewing her "work" (such as it is) I don't think she's even notable enough to cite once in this topic area. The most honest way I can think of to describe her in the topic area of feminist writing or gender issues is as a Concern Troll. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. Her common line of attack, paraphrased, is that feminists would be somehow "more effective" if they moved to totally ineffective or internally contradictory positions (such as that of rape-defenders). It's the very definition of concern-trolling. A good example is her opinion column on the Google Memo, which attempted to cast the guy as a victim when Google really had no choice to fire someone who definitionally created a hostile work environment. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought you retired from Wikipedia entirely, but it seems to have just been a block from politics for a month. Could you post where Young has said anything like that? You linked to some article by "Yonatan Zunger"... Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if you actually wanted the sources as they're linked in the article and your reply started out with some highly unrelated snark that suggests somewhat unpleasant motives, but here is what this thread is referring to, Mr. Magoo:
I assume Morty C-137 linked to the Yunger article to support his "definitionally created a hostile work environment" as that's what he hyperlinked.
That being said, I'm on the fence about what to include here. The criticism section needs work as it's one giant section full of potentially irrelevant name-dropping and a hodge-podge of disparate ideas smashed together into one almost unreadable section. Young's opinion should come with more qualification given the amount of print she has devoted to criticizing feminism and as Morty put, generally espousing views that could be considered consistent with being a "concern troll", which I guess is what the kids call "contrarians" these days...lastly, at the end of the day the quote "current cycle of misandry" should not have a home here. Morty, what would you propose for this section? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
No, those aren't what he described. And "snark"? He's edging the block by posting here, barely outside of the field he's blocked from. You don't think there's a reason for that block? Accusations of bad faith fall moot when there there is something to actually accuse of. You too seem like a very veteran editor, posting on your static IP for the last few days for some reason. The first edit you did a week ago, purely to attack another editor in a survey. And the same kind of accusations there. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
First: I followed the rules and waited my required time in case someone (like you) decided that this fell into the "broadly construed" category. DESPITE being poked at my talk page and asked to comment before then.
Second: Yes, her views are entirely consistent with concern-trolling at the very least. That Washington Post article could serve line by line as a functional demonstration of how Denial#DARVO operates. It misrepresents virtually every source and engages in strawman descriptions at every opportunity, such as reducing hardcore misogynists like Roosh V to "Men who gripe about their ex-girlfriends and advise other men to avoid relationships with women". Morty C-137 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
When the description being applied is some hip new term I have never heard before and that is barely sourced where you linked to, it doesn't exactly resonate. And you only pointed out one "misrepresentation" that isn't even a misrepresentation even according to you but "reduction" and I don't think it is even that because that sounds like a misogynist to me? Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Meh, this seems like an unproductive tangent for us to be debating. We're not going to call her a "concern troll" in wiki-voice - it would have to be exceedingly well sourced to even consider it. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it's unencyclopedic, but it illustrates the problem of using her as a source for anything, much less using her concern-troll opinion columns as citations for the wide-ranging, hand-waving and as far as I've been able to find false claims of any significant "criticism" of the term. The continued attempts to force such claims into the article clearly violate wikipedia policy on WP:UNDUE weight, as even calling it "fringe" is giving those claims too much credit. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, we're not so far apart there - I agree that we need to be very careful not to give people like Young UNDUE weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You need to point out where exactly this "concern-trolling" is happening and not your own repeated opinion that it simply is. I already wrote how you only pointed out one part you called reduction. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Already have done again. You have that amazing (but dishonest) tactic of claiming people didn't already answer your question in hopes of frustrating them. It's a form of gaslighting and I'm asking you as politely as it deserves here to knock it the fuck off, Magoo. Morty C-137 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
No, you haven't. If you had you would have pointed out where. And I can see why you were topic banned when you begin using the f-word to cuss people out. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
And you're continuing gaslighting. I can see why you do it - you were hoping to provoke me and you got what you wanted. Now go gaslight someone else. Your "questions" have been adequately answered, demanding that others repeatedly answer you and claiming they haven't is an abuse tactic. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion would be something like this "Criticism of the term has ranged from questioning its usefulness in discourse to considering it a form of misandry. The term has been described as essentialist, dismissive, and inherently biased by those critiquing the gendered nature of the word. Other commentators have noted that the rising popularity of the term has caused it to become misappropriated, overused, or used as an ad hominem attack to silence debate where arguments should instead be refuted." Thoughts? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made it clearer. This uses the existing sources cited in the criticism section. I'll ref them in when I have a bit more time later. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Here you go!
"Criticism of the term has ranged from questioning its usefulness in discourse [1] to considering it a form of misandry.[2] The term has been described as essentialist, dismissive, and inherently biased by those critiquing the gendered nature of the word.[3][4][5] Other commentators have noted that the rising popularity of the term has caused it to become misappropriated, overused, or used as an ad hominem attack to silence debate where arguments should instead be refuted.[6][7] "
You missed the Australian debate entirely. I've also though about expanding that part because as it is, it's a stub. And it was brought up that criticism section can be alternatively expanded instead... Your sentence would work as the summary of the section in that case. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem remains: virtually every source (especially the forum-shopped opinion columns and concern-trolling of Cathy Young) amount to extremely WP:FRINGE content. After thorough review there's so little valid content that even having a criticism section is WP:UNDUE. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
As stated above the last time there was an attempted to remove Cathy Young and cut down the criticism section, Cathy Young is not Fringe! The only reason someone could think so is if they live in an echo chamber of their own POV. Cathy Young is a conservative journalist which looks at things with a conservative head and has the habit of pointing out facts which left wingers don't like. A lot of people read her stuff and agree with her. A lot of people are conservative and write with the same view she does. For example (as stated above) 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 modern feminist ideology, they support equality but don't equate equality with modern feminism - just as Cathy Young does. Just because you don't like what Cathy Young say does not mean she is in any way a "troll"! Is that what you think - anyone who doesn't think like you must be trolling you! wow! Lets remember - different ideas and different perspectives on the same subject are valid and good! Also it is not "misrepresenting" anything to come to a different concussion using the same data! If it was, you would still be living in feudal state under an absolute monarch because nothing would have progressed. ThinkingTwicecontribs | talk18:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You're now doing nothing but removing anything with a stance you personally disagree with.
Look at what he did just today: [1]. He reverted an edit that contained but an added source, and he called it either a web comment or a letter to the editor. It's clearly neither and fits closest to an op-ed from a journalist who has published 9 articles for the paper: [2] You either have no clue about what you're doing or you're only here to disturb. You offer no arguments as to how the sources are anything you ever claim they are. Just above I asked you to prove where Young says anything like you claim she does and you start completely avoiding that question and only accuse me being a troll by having asked you to explain where you found the general, vague sentiments you use to discredit the person. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree, its a valid opinion peace written by a journalist for her own organisation's website (Fairfax Media are the publishes of the Sydney Morning Herald). She is critical of this term and she points out the hypocrisy of her fellow feminists using the term which is not already covered by the section - so its valid for this article. I have therefore added it back into the criticism section with this appropriate quote and summary. Denby Weller, a Feminist writing in The Sydney Morning Herald points out the hypocrisy of its use, describing it as "generalist sexism" and a "gendered slur" she draw attention to that fact that "gendered slurs are the kinds of things we feminists are supposed to hate."ThinkingTwicecontribs | talk09:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
And we're back where we started, a few misogynists looking for every non-notable WP:OPINION piece they can bum-rush into the article on the flimsiest of pretexts, to give a WP:UNDUE illusion of some form of widespread objection to the term where none exists. Plus, we've gotten far away from the original question of the overciting of concern-troll Cathy Young.I congratulate them on their distraction tactic. Well played. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No because we have already dealt with the Cathy Young question. She is not a troll and your continued assertion that she is simply because she says things which do not support your narrow perspective is not going to convince any of your fellow editors. Also using offensive language to demonise us all simply because you don't get your own way is a violation of WP policy. It is not in any way misogynistic for us to ensure that a contentious article is balanced and ensure appropriate wait is given to all positions. ThinkingTwicecontribs | talk16:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
^Young, Cathy (30 June 2016). "Feminists treat men badly. It's bad for feminism". Washington Post. Whatever the reasons for the current cycle of misandry — yes, that's a word, derided but also adopted for ironic use by many feminists — its existence is quite real. Consider, for example, the number of neologisms that use "man" as a derogatory prefix and that have entered everyday media language: "mansplaining," "manspreading" and "manterrupting."
As I should have expected there are some sensitive feelings regarding this article. Not sure what to say about that.
Anyway the lead as I found it was fairly problematic:
Mansplaining is a blend of the word man and the informal form splaining of the verb explaining and means "to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing".[1][2][3][4] Lily Rothman of The Atlantic defines it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman",[5] and feminist author and essayist Rebecca Solnit ascribes the phenomenon to a combination of "overconfidence and cluelessness".[6]
-- MC
Problem #1
The lead sentence contains plagiarism; there is an unattributed quote in the sentence (and as hopefully everybody understands, providing a ref is not the same as attribution). I have tried 3 times to fix the plagiarism and at least twice so far editors have put the plagiarism back (if you dislike the way I fixed it, re-inserting plagiarism is still not acceptable). As a related problem, the quote itself was modified slightly, so not only was it a plagiarized quote but an inaccurate one (and mind you, modifying one word in a quote does not suddenly make it OK). Anyway, since the editors for whatever reason seem to want to preserve the quote, I have attempted to add attribution in my latest edit:
Mansplaining is a blend of the word man and the informal form splaining of the verb explaining and is defined by Katy Steinmetz of Time Magazine as "to explain something to someone, typically a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." ...
The lead sentence attempts to provide an etymology for the term. This is generally fairly excessive detail for a lead sentence, arguably for the lead as a whole. In one edit I attempted to move the etymology into the next section though that met with disapproval as well. -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Problem #3
This is more of an opinion but the lead really was not providing a good introduction to the concept. It seemed to be jumping right into what people said about the concept (again, filling the lead with quotes is generally not a great idea). I attempted to add a little perspective by explicitly describing this as a form of sexism regarding intellect. Here's how I tried to start it out in my original edits:
Mansplaining is the act of a man attempting to teach or otherwise explain something to a woman in an arrogant or condescending manner.[7][1] It is a form of subtle sexism that implies intellectual superiority of the male gender.
^"mansplain". Dictionary.com. Retrieved October 16, 2017.
You really don't seem to know what the word "plagiarism" actually means, given the frequent misuse. These suggested changes are an overall net negative, as the lead paragraph is just fine the way it is. TheValeyard (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You need to actually read the MOS, specifically WP:INTEXT, WP:Quotations, MOS:QUOTE. WP:Quotations says specifically that quotations must be verbatim, without modification, and WP:INTEXT says specifically you must specify the author of the quote in addition to providing a ref citation. Plagiarism is a serious concern and it is not something to be played around with. And, I'm sorry but engaging in edit wars because you have not bothered to read the MOS is not acceptable.
You seem quite familiar with obscure style guides despite an inability to actually apply them properly, as user EvergreenFir has pointed out. Have you edited this article with any other IP addresses or accounts? TheValeyard (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The IP has a long enough history to explain this sloppy cafeteria tray full of alphabet soup. Vandalism like this seems like a bigger concern. Anyway, assuming a bit of good faith, quotes should generally be attributed, but:
A. Not everything in quotation marks is a direct quote, especially when dealing with a definition, and
B. Calling a properly referenced but improperly attributed quote "plagiarism" is non-productive and antagonistic. This is not taking credit for someone else's work, this is making it slightly less obvious exactly where something came from. It is clear this came from somewhere else, and we provide a means for determining where. Using plagiarism as justification for edit warring is unacceptable.
MC's initial edits also alter the meaning of the term according to sources. Misrepresenting sources is also unacceptable, and introduces many of the same major ethical problems of 'plagiarism'.
I would support some formatting changes to the lede to match these suggestions, but this is starting off on the wrong foot for this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed by these attitudes. Arguing that this is not plagiarism is like arguing it's not rape if they were on a date. Sure there are quotation marks and the reader might figure out that this means it is a quote of another author (though it is hardly obvious). Sure they can search through the footnotes, open up each one read through and figure out who was the original source (very few people ever would). Sure all of these things are true. But there is a reason WP takes such a staunch stand on plagiarism. It is offensive to suggest that being careless about this is OK.
Comparing this to date rape is incendiary to the point of trolling. If you expect strangers to care about how disappointed you are in an open forum, show more caution and basic decency when discussing this.
Does this definition have enough creativity to be plagiarized? I don't know, but that's ambiguous. Is it handled a bit sloppy? I can see that, but cranking this up to eleven with comparisons to rape undermine your credibility. One of your proposed substitutes significantly altered the meaning supported by these sources, which demonstrates the problem. This is a simple definition of a relatively simple concept, and Wikipedia should reflect that simplicity. Adding complexity to make our jobs easier isn't a solution. Fudging around the words to create something that's sort of close to the definition provided by sources is not a solution. Couching this in weaselly attributions for a definition that is neither novel nor disputed by reliable sources is also not a solution. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits
NinjaRobotPirate, I apologize for the "ce" edit summary. I had intended to write more (rmv/swap poorly sourced, rmv repetition, fix writing), but I was distracted as I was saving and forgot to do it. I'm about to restore the edit, because it fixed several problems on the page, including some poor writing.
I added to the lead that it was a New York Times word of the year.
I moved the material in the old "definition" section to "origins". In the version you restored, the definition section made no sense. It began "Solnit's original essay went further", but at that stage, the article hadn't mentioned Solnit's essay, and it gave no clue as to what "went further" meant. It then discussed a much later publication of hers. I moved all that into "origins", final paragraph. See Origins.
In "origins", I added where the Solnit essay was originally published and a citation. That was left unclear in the version you restored. (It's a bit of red flag that the article couldn't get that right, when it was cited properly in the earliest edits.)
I removed two repetitive quotes (Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald) because the criticism section was a "me too" quote farm. (If you had something else in mind when you wrote on my talk that I had "mass-removed several reliable sources", please say below.) All the key criticism remains; there is no need to say the same thing several times, although if you want to restore those sources, you're welcome to. I added a quote about the word from Solnit, sourced directly to her, rather than, as it was in the version you restored, not quoted properly and sourced to something else. See Criticism.
I moved "In February 2016, the term sparked an argument between two members of a committee of the Australian Senate..." from the criticism section to the usage section, and elaborated a little. See Usage, last sentence of first paragraph.
I guess it looked a bit more confusing from the diff screen, where everything was disappearing or being moved around. I think the background from the Globe and Mail piece was that there was an edit war between opposing POV-pushers, one of whom wanted to call it an ad hominem or something, but without a source. I could be remembering this incorrectly, but my recollection is that I settled the edit war by finding that Globe source. The rest of the article has a similarly contentious history, mostly arriving through the current state through a series of edit wars. I don't know about anyone else, but when I see major, undiscussed changes, it starts making me nervous. I might have combined the sources, like "described as an ad hominem[cite] or 'hypocritical'[cite]". The "gender essentialism" bit, I think, brings us back to post-structuralism and feminist theory, which I thought was kind of an interesting debate. But I didn't realize we were going off on that tangent twice. Maybe it's redundant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence in Criticism refers to essentialism, so I thought that was probably enough. For me, the two key sources in that section are Cathy Young, both because of her prominence and because she explains the point well, and Rebecca Solnit, who repeats the "inherently flawed" (i.e. essentialist) criticism, and that matters given that she inspired the word. The rest seemed a little repetitive, but if you want to restore it or combine it, please do, especially if it was serving to resolve a dispute. SarahSV(talk)16:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Source for the term being offensive to some people
It would be great if we had an image file of the sculpture Classmates by sculptor Paul Tadlock to illustrate this article. See this article, 'The story behind the “Mansplaining: The Statue” photo that went viral on Twitter' of 27 May 2015 on Women in the World. This image is not yet on Commons as far as I can see, and I don't know about copyrights of photos of artworks. I'm just hoping this would be possible.... (Maybe someone can either explain or mansplain to me why this would or wouldn't be possible? ;-) ) Laurier (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but I know from experience on Wikipedia that images of statues, memorials, and such are automatically copyrighted by their creator, and the copyright is honored by WP. If the image is in the background, or otherwise obscured, I'm sure it would be OK. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is heavily editing by the opponents of the term and is obviously and stealthily biased. For example, there is a collection "critic" section with full descriptions and quotes, but the evidence and examples (Romney, Trump, O'Donnell, etc) are just named fast in one sentence in the "usage" section, and for example there is no section for awards. Or in the lead the persons who describe the term are written as Solnit said this and Rothman said that, but in the criticism section a sentence from one website is ascribed to the whole world.--Taranet (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree. I don't have the courage or energy to do something about it right now. Hope someone does... Laurier (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I concur. There's too much undue focus on "criticism", and much of that criticism is either irrelevant, or alleges that the use of the word is "misandrist", which is laughable. There's a clear agenda here and if nobody will mind, I'm going to take the initiative to fix it. The mods can decide if it was the right idea. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed much of the biased criticism. Unfortunately my changes have been reverted without explanation. The point is, various examples of the usage of the term do not elaborate. I mean there are no long quotes explaining the instances of Trump mansplaining. Yet the criticism brings up various sources attempting to push the laughable idea that the term is somehow "misandrist". Heck, one of the so called critics cited is Ann Widdecombe. The entire criticism section reads like a Conservapedia article. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay. The Ann Widdecombe "criticism" has been removed at least, and my edit was approved. More than anything, that part needed to go. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Femsplaining
"Mansplaining" (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".
I know that "original research" is forbidden on Wikipedia, however, I think that the exact opposite should also be pointed out since it does happen.
"Femsplaining" (a blend word of female and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a woman) to comment on or explain something to a man in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner". 50.107.152.106 (talk) on 12 Feb 2019
My rationale for removing the reference to Ann Widdecombe is that she's an anti-feminist, post truth politician, and her "criticism" is based around the "argument" that "women are more equal than ever". This is not a serious criticism of the concept of mansplaining, or even the idea of feminism. It is merely her asserting her partisan views for political clout. This may be appropriate to be featured on her own article, among her political views, back to back with criticism that SHE HERSELF received, but it's not appropriate as a legitimate criticism on a completely unrelated subject.
I carefully reconsidered my first edit, which removed most of the criticism section and conceded that it was going overboard, which is why i decided to just remove this one reference, and justify my decision to the best of my abilities. My edit, which was previously approved by User:Nithin, has been reverted, and i got an "edit war" warning, so I'm getting mixed messages here. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with you on the fact that the edit warring claim by User:Binksternet is nonsensical (just look at the page history), i do agree with your second edit (the one that i approved) not because its anti-feminist, but because her argument doesn't make sense, and is confusing when read. However, i don't agree with your first edit, it seems like you were removing any real criticism of mansplaining. Nithintalk00:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It was my first impression that a lot of the criticism have an agenda behind it and as such cannot be taken seriously. On a second readthru the section appeared more nuanced than I first assumed, so i just removed the part that that obviously needs removal. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
After waiting several days for some form of response, I have decided to remove the reference to Ann Widdecombe a second time. I have done everything that can be expected of me and it's not my fault that the only feedback i got was one AGREEING with my decision. I cannot "discuss the issue" if the peoole who keep reverting my edits and sending me edit war warnings refuse to explain to me what i did wrong. I'm seing no clear explanations as to why it should be here, and Ann Widdecombe's contentious claim that "women are more equal than ever" has absolutely nothing to do with what mansplaining is. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Five of the eight images in the category are infographics and cartoons in Dutch and German, which is probably not very useful here. Two are images categorized as mansplaining that don't really make it obvious what's going on. I would say that, out of all of them, File:CSP 2017 day 4 (37249059025).jpg would be the only one relevant and clear enough to add to the article. I'd supporting putting it in. Armadillopteryx00:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
“Splain” was used several times as a punchline in the top rated 1950s I Love Lucy TV show. It was used by Cuban Ricky Ricardo as a punchline with emphasis on his Spanish accent.
I have accepted an edit that added this article to the category Misandry, as it did not appear prima facie to be disruptive. However, I imagine this may be controversial. Please feel free to engage BRD if you feel this is inappropriate. Best, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead seems to be a quote from a dictionary (the first cited source) - any reason why this isn't paraphrased in our own words? GirthSummit (blether)14:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gjpingle (article contribs).
Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gjpingle (article contribs).
Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gjpingle (article contribs).
Regarding this revert, I don't see how renaming the "Criticism" section to "Misandry" addresses the issues brought up by the {{Criticism section}} template. Perhaps the way to resolve the template is to turn the "Criticism" section into a "Reception" section, and add any positive or neutral reception (not just negative) that the term may have received. Bennv123 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Media and Gender
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bananaapplekiwi (article contribs).
From the article you got an impression that rather using the word ‚mansplaining’ is worse than actual manslaining, which in fact is a psychological violence used by men on women and that should be takeaway for readers. Looks like some offended men abusers have written this article. 89.200.144.109 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gjpingle (article contribs).