Talk:Manliness

See Talk:Manliness (book). Biscuittin 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for speedy deletion
Summary: there's one search term "manliness". There are two possible referents for the term: manliness=masculinity and Manliness (book). There are only two namespaces required — Manliness and Masculinity. No DAB page or redirect is needed, only a DAB link at top of the article at this namespace.

At the moment, if someone types "manliness" they come to this namespace. What they probably want is found at the Masculinity article (no need for two articles on same subject). There was simply a redirect here until a book was written in 2006. Some will now want Manliness the book if they type "manliness", but are unlikely to know to look for Manliness (book). They might as well get the book straight away, since the topic of manliness is unlikely to ever need this namespace as it can be adequately covered at Masculinity. If ever further disambiguation is required, Manliness (disambiguation) already exists. The article on the book can be moved back to Manliness (book) if a hypothetical new topic has a better claim to being at this namespace.

Please note the current page at this namespace has little or no content, and the same for the edit history. Moving Manliness (book) to this namespace would be really appreciated.

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice of removal of sourced material
Since it is an important courtesy to build consensus before removing sourced material (with certain exceptions), I'm notifying that I'll be removing the quotes from the press currently cited in the article. I don't doubt the comments were made, it's just that they're irrelevant in an encyclopedia. They don't present an argument, just opinion, hence it's not information in this context. Wiki articles are not polling booths where published writers cast votes. It's a place where claims are made, and counter claims made, both citing evidence or logical relationships.

I will however, be attempting to find the arguments presented by the writers cited and used to justify their opinions. We need to give our readers arguments to evaluate, not simply a chance to take sides or count heads.

Anyone, please feel free to do this work on the article, I've only got so much time. The links are already there, see if you can summarise the arguments made in the short reviews they reference. If all the reviewers agree on certain points, it's better we make those points, and footnote which writers line up behind them. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't visited this article in a long time, so I'm somewhat surprised you removed all the reviews. The book was widely criticized as self-indulgent, meandering twaddle.  (I tried to read the book, and found it extremely tedious.)  Your clean up, while making the article much tidier, now makes the book appear almost respectable.


 * You wrote, regarding the reviews: "They don't present an argument, just opinion, hence it's not information in this context."


 * First off, they do present arguments -- counter-arguments. For example, when someone points out that the author is hand-picking the feminists he's attacking, that's an argument.


 * Secondly, a book review is an opinion, but it definitely provides context for an encyclopdeia entry. For example, if someone writes an article about Ed Wood and fails to mention that he is widely considered one of the worst film-makers ever, a big piece of information is missing.  It's opinion, but it's definitely "information".


 * I am tempted to restore some of the quotes you lifted, or at the very least adding a section titled "general criticism of the book". This assumes I have the time or energy to bother.  Looks like the last 100 edits or so were done by you.  Wow.  --Nik (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)