Talk:Criticisms of women's studies

POV and separating this from the main article
See the POV checks in the talk page of Women's studies to find out why this needed to be separated... Towsonu2003 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this an improvement on the original unbalanced article? It seems like a textbook POV fork to me. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you by any chance read the linked talk page above? There was no need for the criticism part longer than the part about the discipline itself. Hence, it's much better to separate that from the article, put it here, and let everyone expand this article to their needs. In the meantime, that Women's studies article needs expanding free of "POV" stress (expanding: tell us what women's studies is, what's its history and so on) Towsonu2003 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was a frequent participant on that Talk page, and I completely agree that the original article was ridiculously unbalanced. But please read the guideline on POV forking.  Just separating an article on "Criticisms of X" is generally thought more harmful than an obviously unbalanced article, because it reduces the need to write unbiased articles. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your position perfectly. However, the guideline (which I checked bf separating criticism from the article itself) you linked says: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." This one is not another article on the same subject. The guideline specifies: "In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." So I think we can go forward now. And probably, once this one builds enough (should take a few weeks at most, as it needs citations and expanding), a very good summary should be inserted to Women's studies. Towsonu2003 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed
There are some serious attacks on Women's studies in that bulleted list. Each needs a specific citation where that criticism is mentioned. Moreover, each bullet needs to be expanded (expanding = further explanation and example for each criticism). Towsonu2003 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, quotes need page numbers from where they were quoted. Towsonu2003 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a revision to the page, removing the list on the ground of no original research splitting the quotes into 3 paragraphs as they address 3 seperate concepts and are not "signposted" by one another and added individual Fact tags. I've also added 1 paragraph of a response to criticism from the Women's studies page - its just as badly sourced as everything else on this page unfortunately.  I will take this opportunity one final time to ask that this page be merged or redirected to Women's studies if it is not done so within 10 days I will prod it myself for being a POV fork.  Even before my edits the page did not comprise enough material to justify a seperate article I have provided a temporary fork here in my own user space.  Please feel free to talk to me about this--Cailil 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a reliable source?
To quote WP:ATT: "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." The ultimate question about this section is whether the criticisms of Paglia et al deserve the weight they've been given. consider the multiple criticisms of Camille Paglia in particular one of which I quote: "Literary Critic Mary Rose Kasraie echoed Lofreda's analysis, saying, 'Paglia gives no indication she has read any studies related to women, or recent studies about imagination, nature and culture' and reiterates the 'terrible gaps in her coverage.' Kasraie criticizes her work as 'distractingly antischolarly' and labels it 'an unacademic wallow in Sadean sadomasochistic cthonian nature.'" The criticism levelled at women's studies is anti-intellectual as much as it is anti-feminist. Take for example Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge's critique of women's studies comparing it to Marxism and Freudian psychology - exactly what is Patai & Koertge's point about Marxism and Freudianism, exactly what are they saying?

Let me be clear I am not in favour of criticism sections in every article, that is an absolute misrepresentation of Wikipdia policy, in this case I do agree that a criticism section is notable but not very. The arguments used by the editors who first created this section in Women's studies are deliberately selective and misrepresentative and were designed to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. I can go into detail on this if needs be, but for the moment I'll point out that the quotes of Patai and Kortege and Lehrman are unsourced and not notable enough for the weight given. IMO a simple wikilink to their pages would be enough - passers-by can link to the pages in question and have a balanced view of the situation; otherwise we remain in the position Towsonu2003 so correctly lamented, that the criticism section is larger than the article.--Cailil 16:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

page redirected to women's studies
After waiting for weeks and having discussed it with User:Towsonu2003 I've redirected this page to [{Women's studies]]. This page is a POV fork it needs because it is completely unsourced and perhaps gives undue weight to a number of criticisms of Women's studies. I'm hosting a temp page for this rewrite in my user space here, please feel free to edit and discuss the page there.--Cailil 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)