Talk:Loving Female Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Removed POV tags

POV tags were removed from this article, and the section specifically pointed to remains more or less unchanged. However no comments about the the tags were put on this page. This was because the person who put them in believed them to be self explanatory (see Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Loving Female Authority), a view that I share.

I still do not think that the article conforms to a neutral point of view. In my opinion the article contains weasel terms, peacock terms and vanity. For example in the section "Female-Led Relationships" user Paigeharrison starts by describing the author Paige Harrison rather then the term to be defined. Bergsten 22:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I also agree. POV is a problem here. I may try to take this up as a member of the taskforce. Still undecieded. Should I attempt to correct grammer and POV? If not please post here or at my user page. Eagle

• Will repost the POV tags along with grammer tags. Eagle 21:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am interested in a wife=led relationship, and I have been for at least a decade. Still, I think this article uses blanket assumptions regarding the facts that these types of relationships are so common, and that there is a negative backlash against them. I feel this is not the case. I feel wikipedia leans to the left more often than not, and this view is evident in the presuppositions of many articles, LFA included.

Interesting any other veiws I may take this up as a member of the clean-up taskforce. Yes or No on this Idea. I will make up my mind on December 10

• Untill than I can try and keep tabs.

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge [edit] Loving Female Authority A simple read of the article will demonstrate why it needs to be cleaned up, particularlar the latter portion of the second part of the article user:64.236.170.4 Tagged as stub in both sociology and culture. RJFJR 15:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC) It has a POV tag on it. RJFJR 15:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC) The POV tags keeps being removed, while the POV problem seems to remain. Bergsten 18:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Yup, POV and poor grammar. This article actually concerns things that interest me, but how to clean it up effectively is beyond me. I think it may be a deletion candidate. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) (desk) 05:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC) I think the grammer can be dealt with. I may take this up.Eagle (talk) (desk)21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC) I did a lot of low-level rewriting. If someone feels the need to remove any templates, then by all means, do so. AnonMoos 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Thank you. You really helped with the NPOV problem

Contents 1 Removed POV tags 2 Loving Female Authority 3 Worthless 4 Trimmed

Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I (Paige Harrison) will be happy to enter into a dialogue with anyone about improving this stub. I am also happy to chat by telephone about my thought concerning the Female-Led lifestyle. I believe it is highly relevant approach as a lifestyle choice for both men and women to become aware of. The lifestyle is intentional and has many offshoots that are applicable to both married and single women. This lifestyle approach will continue to develop as the realities and notions for what is normal for women is rapidly changing. I will continue to enhance and improve what has been written and welcome anyones input. paigeharrison

One problem is the view that female predominance is the wave of the future which will soon sweep the nation is fairly subjective, yet seemed to be presented as unquestioned fact. I did a lot of low-level rewriting. If anyone feels the need to remove any templates, then by all means, do so. AnonMoos 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

paigeharrison, Good Job. Thanks for the NPOV.

Edited on Eagle (talk) (desk)

Grammer only, no content was changed Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The tags were removed agian, If anyone thinks NPOV is a problem, please put the tags back on. I am in the middle, as I have found slight problems. I belive that they will be edited out in the future and are not a problem.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

the article looks fine to me, I am going to go and work on other articlesEagle (talk) (desk) 17:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worthless

This article is useless and is a waste of valuable space on the servers. Can someone tell me why there is even an article on this?--Moosh88 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the above user made the edit: [1], which suggests this is a hatred of D/S lifestyle rather than any reasonable belief that this article is unnecessary. Mdwh 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit as a joke, because this article is a joke. So since you seem to be involved with this article, why don't you answer my question? What is the purpose of this article? It's just advertising some ladies book, which is not even mainstream.--Moosh88 03:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see it being argued that this should be merged with one of the D/s articles such as Female dominance, and I wouldn't object to this. Perhaps someone else can explain if this is a sufficiently different concept to require a separate article. Alternatively, please feel free to suggest a change through the proper channels (eg, proposing for deletion) rather than vandalising the article. Mdwh 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this article being merged with a more general bdsm article. Either one of us can bring this to a vote, it doesn't matter to me. A merge would make this article relavent and thus there would be no reason for its deletion.--Moosh88 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimmed

The 'Female Led' section was a book discussion, and read suspiciously like someone's essay. This makes it original research. I've excised it down to one paragraph. I think the article is worth keeping, though. Proto||type 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)