This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
A user recently made a good-faith change (2 edits) to the lede that is problematic. First, I aappreciate the compliment in the comment ("Congratulations. You managed to reference an article completely debunking the theory, without even mentioning that it does so. I didn't need to do anything other than read the reference you already gave.") The problem with these edits will become clear if you look at the Table of Contents, Section 3 "Pink for boys, blue for girls." This link provides a fuller explanation of what happened (a recent answer I gave on Quora). The problem with Marco Del Giudice is that he only checked Google Books indirectly, through two corpora containing only samples. Also, there are issues with the searchability of this material. Sometimes entire phrases are not properly indexed. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem with" the source that you have supposedly found is original research and Wikipedia is not supposed to be edited on that basis. You're not permitted to use the source to reach a conclusion contrary to what it itself says. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article a list of sources, rather than prose that summarises and cites those sources? --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this page to be moved to some other Wikimedia project, because it is not an encyclopedia article. jnestorius(talk) 13:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]