From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Previous Posts 2 New Posts 2.1 Heteronormative content at Sexual intercourse 2.2 Bot 2.3 Women's studies 2.4 Hi 2.5 Criticisms of women's studies

[edit] Previous Posts

Archived here Towsonu2003 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Posts

[edit] Heteronormative content at Sexual intercourse

I noticed that you commented previously at this article about the lack of content on forms of sexual intercourse other than vaginal intercourse. I would really appreciate your input on the Talk page, as I have proposed a move of the content from Sexual intercourse to Vaginal intercourse. I invite you to join us on Talk:Sexual_intercourse and share your opinion. Thank you for reading! Joie de Vivre 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Thanks for your contributions to Great Union Party. However, we can't accept speculation, personal commentary, or original research in articles. You are however welcome to share your thoughts on topics on discussion pages or your personal user space. Thanks anyway, and good luck! Patstuart^talk|edits 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

answered at user's talk page Towsonu2003 07:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. However, I was referring tothe blanket change of the word "nationalist" to "fascist". Simply being associated with a fascist at some time in the past does not mean a party is fascist. We have to be careful about putting in things that might sound derragatory without sources. Cheers. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

answered at user's talk page Towsonu2003 07:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women's studies

Hi Towsonu2003 -- Thanks very much for helping to work on the women's studies page & being bold. I think you can see that there is some significant differences in POV happening. The anonymous editor basically reverted your changes; I worked from there rather than engaging in a revert war. Right now, the editor is talking on the talk page, which is a good sign, so I'm AGF with the anonymous editor, and trying to work on compromise versions. It would be great if you would stick around the page and help out too. Best, lquilter 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

answered at user's talk page Towsonu2003 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:your message. Yes, Afd is the place for this. I patrol attack pages regularly, and really that speedy tag is for "Joe Smith is gay" "I hate (insert ethnic group or sports team)", not for articles that may have POV problems. So, yeah, an Afd should sort it out, one way or the other. Cheers. Dina 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• AFD - Hey Towsonu2003. Don't be discouraged, please, by the AFD. I get what you're trying to do, truly I do. Wikifolks can be a bit procedural minded, and the procedures are not always clear (and are not always consistent). I think the important thing is that you and I, and probably a lot of other editors as well, are in accord about what needs to be done to make this a much better, useful article. We can freely add or delete content, and, yes, the history will always have the unbalanced versions in; but that in itself is a useful record. I'll commit to working on the article, and starting to add in some of the sections that we each listed. (I added a list of sections that we need, below our discussion on the Talk:Women's studies page; and then refined it based on your comments.) I could, for instance, over the next week or so, work on the "prevalance of W/S in academic departments" and write a small section on that. Perhaps you could pick one of the other missing sections and draft some text for that. Really, it's great that you're being so proactive in trying to get this mess fixed. --lquilter 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Towsonu2003 well done for entering into debate with the IP user on Women's Studies. I'm currently involved in a dispute with that same user about their additions to Gender, Feminism and Talk:WikiProject Gender Studies. I understand your frustration with this editor, and don't worry about the AfD, anyone can see that you have the best of intentions. I would recommend using request for comment in such a situtaion or dropping a line at the WikiProject's involved with the article like Project Gender Studies and/or WikiProject Sociology. I'll be having a look at thta page in the near future myself. All the best --Cailil 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Listen, the similar issue came up in the PKK article, and the modification didn't pose a problem. I have studied law and political sciences, and believe me that in the English language there is not a concensus on how to define fascism as it applies to modern movements - a) fascism is never used, b) the use of neofascist doesn't have a concensus, and it is exclusively a European concept which makes its application to Turkey difficult. MHP et al are referred to as ultra-nationalist by the BBC and similar - and that's what counts. The word fascist in Turkish has mutated a bit from its original academic meaning in the English language. Just use ultra-nationalist, it will be simpler for uninformed readers: most anglophones think of Mussolini and the second world war movements when they think of fascism.. Cheers! Baristarim 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph at fascism - you will see that there is not an academic concensus for the application of that word for post-WW2 movements even in Europe, let alone those outside of Europe. Maybe I am picking because this is what I have studied in university along with law, but it is better to be precise all the same :) Baristarim 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll (try to ehem) use ultra-nationalist. But this organization is very similar to Hitler and Mussolini's views on arianism... probably unlike MHP, which is still crazy but less Hitler'ish compared to these guys... Towsonu2003 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it is :) It is true that MHP has gotten much better since the end of the Cold War, and that is the precise reason why these splinter groups are appearing (including even BBP).. Don't worry, I wasn't making that change for sympathy with them - as I said, I was just being a bit picky. I don't get a lot of chance to edit articles along the lines of what my speciality is, therefore I kind of jump into things like that! Cheers! Baristarim 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of women's studies

Towsonu2003 I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.
I can see why you've decided to seperate Criticisms of women's studies to work on this problematic section - but you should have used a subpage not created a new article page. I would recommend to you strongly that that page be merged with Women's studies or be deleted. At present there is no need a) to sperate this from the Women's studies page because of that article's length or b) enough reliable material in this section to constitute an article "in and of itself."
Please corect me if I'm wrong but your premise for creating the Criticisms of women's studies page is that summary style should be used for the women's studies criticism section. This implies that there is a "large" amount of criticism of the Women's Studies discipline and also that a large encyclopedic article could be written about it. I for one don't agree a) with this premise (as above 'Women's studies is not long') or b) that such criticisms are notable enough for their own article. By notable I mean that in this case Patai and Koertge's book is a primary source - you'd need to find enough secondary sources that talk about their book and the other's to show notablity rather than undue weight . I did a search myself and I found two such sources

• Anne-Marie Kinahan in Published in Canadian Review of American Studies - Issue 31:1, 2001 [1] which critiques René Denfeld's The New Victorians: A Young Woman's Challenge to the Old Feminist Order (New York: Warner, 1995)
• and a wider look at women's studies including its critics in Kim Chuppa-Cornell's "The Scholarly Arm of the Women's Movement: A Look Back at the Journey." WILLA, Volume 11, p. 3-10.

IMHO this is not enough for a separate article - I reiterate that you should copy this content to a sandbox and merge the existing page to Women's studies otherwise it will be Afd'd eventually. Some artciles just sit here on wikipedia in a sorry state, alá Pop feminism. Putting unsourced material "out there" doesn't mean it will get sourced by other users.
I apologize if I sound aggressive - if I certainly don't mean to be - I know you are acting in good faith and are making postive contributions to developing the Women's studies article (which needs a lot of work) but i disagree fundamentally with the approach taken. IMO even if there was enough material for a content fork such a change needs to be discussed on the Women' studies talk page. Drop me a line about this when you can I'd be happy to talk about this--Cailil 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls see [[2]] for my reasons. I don't care too much about the criticism within the article except that it kills the item by making it hostile to itself (which makes it looks ridiculous, to say the least). Those who want to talk about the "bad stuff" women's studies did should take their anti-feminist backlash to a new page and play there. Towsonu2003 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Towsonu2003. I 100% agree with you about the undue balance given to criticisms of Women's studies but there are more approriate ways of dealing with this. I may not have been clear about my point. The Criticisms of women's studies page should have been created as a temporary rather than permanent subpage. As it stands the article (and I realize it doesn't reflect your opinions) is unsourced, POV and of dubious notability. The backlashers as well as encyclopedic editors would be able to develop the page in a temporary subpage just as well as they could in the current one. I'm sorry to be nit-picking but a POV Fork is quite a problem. I would be happy to host the temporary subpage for the criticism or for the rewrite of the whole Women's studies article if you're not able to. Such a page could be listed at the 3 most pertinent WikiProjects (Project Gender Studies, WikiProject LGBT studies and the Sociology WikiProject). This way even as a subpage it would get quite a lot of attention and not be a POV fork. Please consider this approach--Cailil 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Towsonu2003. I'm just dropping by to ask if you've had a chance to think about the above. As mentioned I have a free sandbox which could be used as a temorary subpage if required.--Cailil 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point really. But if you want, I don't have any problems with making that page a temporary page. Towsonu2003 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Towsonu2003|Towsonu2003] - I've created the temp page for criticism of women's studies. I recommend the current Criticisms of women's studies be turned into a redirect. We can continue this discussion on th talk page for th new subpage if you like :)--Cailil 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)