Talk:Criticisms of women's studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)