Talk:The Woman-Identified Woman

Add sources
Good summation in glbtq archive Miffedmess (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Political implications" section needs rewrite badly
The "Political implications" section of this article is noticeably biased in tone in favor of The Woman-Identified Woman. Among other things, the manifesto was "shrewd", "presented a watershed", "truly[...] a monumental argument". The manifesto's arguments are presented as statements of fact. All of this goes on at length, entirely uncited and riddled with typographical issues, to the point where I can't be certain I understand what connections it means to draw between some phrases. I'd rewrite it myself, of course, but I don't have the spoons for it; this was difficult enough. ViKomprenas (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. A recent attempt was made to fix it, which was a mixed bag, removing some editorializing words, cutting back the content a bit, and some other things, but unfortunately without supplying any sources. On balance, I thought the overall edit was not an improvement, so I reverted, but I agree with ViKomprenas that a rewrite is in order, and I agree with the intent of the cutback in the recent edit, but not by replacing one unsourced POV with another.  Most importantly, it needs sourcing, as it has been pure, unsourced, original research for the last five years.  I'm leaning towards removing the section from the article entirely, and collapsing it here, for further work and discussion.  But I'll wait a bit to see if anyone wants to tackle the sourcing issue first, or comment here. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was attempting a pure copyedit (making it say what it says, but better). My understanding of sourcing is that you need it for adding things, not removing (unsourced) verbiage. I added nothing (at least intentionally). I am happy to correct any errors, if you will point them out. I don't edit war, so the reversion stands. Happy New Year! Lfstevens (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)