Talk:Emily Martin (anthropologist)

Neutrality
The body text portrays Martin's views as absolute truth. This needs some style changes to bring it down to NPOV - as long as they're theories or opinions, no matter whose, they should be represented as such, not as straight facts. I'll focus on this in the next couple of days, time permitting, unless someone else does so first.Leushenko (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Fashionable Nonsense" is included as a See Also because, as the last paragraph of the Anthropology of Science and Feminism section makes clear, Martin's theories are based on non-mainstream interpretations of contemporary science (ie. they are wrong). She is a type example of this kind of researcher. Leushenko (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin is not mentioned in the book (I've read it), so it is not relevant to this article. Your opinion of her work is POV and unless you can find a reliable source for it, it does not belong in the article. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Content
More information on her ideas should be added. The egg/sperm story, ideas on menstruation and PMS, and the woman's body during labor are only three ideas that people can contribute information about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmshates (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a better way to organize the content? The content under "Anthropology of Science and Feminism" tends to be repeated under "Writings", which can be redundant. Samafo (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)