This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
The "Political implications" section of this article is noticeably biased in tone in favor of The Woman-Identified Woman. Among other things, the manifesto was "shrewd", "presented a watershed", "truly[...] a monumental argument". The manifesto's arguments are presented as statements of fact. All of this goes on at length, entirely uncited and riddled with typographical issues, to the point where I can't be certain I understand what connections it means to draw between some phrases. I'd rewrite it myself, of course, but I don't have the spoons for it; this was difficult enough. ViKomprenas (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. A recent attempt was made to fix it, which was a mixed bag, removing some editorializing words, cutting back the content a bit, and some other things, but unfortunately without supplying any sources. On balance, I thought the overall edit was not an improvement, so I reverted, but I agree with ViKomprenas that a rewrite is in order, and I agree with the intent of the cutback in the recent edit, but not by replacing one unsourced POV with another. Most importantly, it needs sourcing, as it has been pure, unsourced, original research for the last five years. I'm leaning towards removing the section from the article entirely, and collapsing it here, for further work and discussion. But I'll wait a bit to see if anyone wants to tackle the sourcing issue first, or comment here. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting a pure copyedit (making it say what it says, but better). My understanding of sourcing is that you need it for adding things, not removing (unsourced) verbiage. I added nothing (at least intentionally). I am happy to correct any errors, if you will point them out. I don't edit war, so the reversion stands. Happy New Year! Lfstevens (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}