Talk:Feminism

/Archive 1

Added back sourced material
Added back sourced material. Not sure why formatting was removed on lots of the citations that had used citation templates. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that the edit with summary "add back sourced material" was actually a reduction of 4,101 bytes. I have not made time to analyze what was actually added in this edit, if anything, but I see that Kalki has already reviewed and revised the page. In the future, it would be helpful to be a little more straightforward when summarizing edits, and to use separate edits for clarity when making major reorganizations, additions, and removals all at once. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is being used in part as an attack page on women. Those quotes should be removed, they're not really quoteworthy anyways. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread is about "Added back sourced material". What was added? Are you now saying the added material should be removed? ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying a majority of this quote page is being used as an attack piece. -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, what was added? Did the added material tip the balance in what is now an article having an overwhelming majority of quotes that are not attacks on women? I thought that was the case before your edit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not lately delved into surmisals of what might be the motives of some of those who have added some of the quotes Cirt had removed, but they are on the subject of the page, and present various views on the subject, in accord with a properly NPOV stance which PERMITS many points of view to be presented and does not DICTATE what can or cannot be presented based upon any highly artificial (and thus likely highly biased) criteria. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC) + tweak

Pictures
Let's keep the pictures simple, and the captions simple descriptions of the subjects (name, year). -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit in drastically removing images also removed MANY quotes. As any competent or genuinely well-intentioned editor on this project who has spent more than a little time on it should clearly know, the images on pages at Wikiquote have been used to draw further attention to some of the notable quotes, and augment awareness of some of the things the quotes indicate or allude to, they are generally NOT provided here simply to provide "Wikipedia lite" information or mini essays describing the subject of the photos. Such actions as removing them and their quote captions are once again apparently an attempt by a single editor to ignore, defy and quite suddenly and drastically and dictatorially alter STANDARD practices which have been established here for many YEARS. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Removed non relevant image
This image is non-relevant and violates WQ:NPOV. Removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why you feel this image is not relevant - or why you feel the quotes you removed from the page are not quoteworthy. Can you explain your rationale? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely how is this image relevant? -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe for a page on Anarcha-feminism, but it fails WQ:NPOV to display it here, especially so prominently, especially without quotes about it or that relate to the image somehow or explain it. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a long standing symbol used by MANY feminists it is very relevant. I believe much of your opinions on "NPOV" (Neutral Point of View) are extremely deficient and very definitely extremely POV in rather authoritarian ways, from my perspectives. The policies stated, as crude and rudimentary as they are, being only slight alterations of the WIkipedia policy in ways not fully considerative of differences of aims, basically state that our mission is "best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. (Of course, there are limits to which points of view are worth mentioning, and this can be an area of conflict.)" and that "writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing."
 * We do not actually do much writing here within articles, but do present MANY points of view — and you are basically asserting that the points of view of people who have used such symbols for many years as ones of feminism should NOT be presented or even considered — and points of view of some of the quotes you have been removing (which you, or I, or many of us, might not approve), should simply be removed as "insulting" of feminism — and that Is NOT a genuine NPOV stance. It states "This might be viewed as an adversarial system, but hopefully a polite one. One is expected to approximate NPOV to the best of one's ability and welcome improvements brought by others in good faith." One does NOT even approximate NPOV by EXCLUDING material of various types clearly related to the issue. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * It's not the top most single prominent image at article on Wikipedia, and it shouldn't be here. -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In deference to your objections to the image labeled File:Radical feminism.svg I have replaced it with the more stylized File:Womanpower logo.svg which is prominent on the page you cite ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much,, I appreciate that, very much! :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Much better
This is much better, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotations showing gender discrimination
Where to put a quotation like this? --Nemo 22:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The real offence, as she ultimately perceived, was her having a mind of her own at all. Her mind was to be his — attached to his own like a small garden-plot to a deer-park.
 * Henry James, The Portrait of a Lady, ch. XLII.