Talk:Womxn

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Bridgetsheppeck, JacksonFA.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs an overhaul

This article reads like an original thinkpiece from a fringe online magazine. It states as if it is plainly obvious and part of the general knowledge that the unadorned word "women" somehow has racial connotations hearkening back to the Atlantic Slave Trade, without a lick of evidence.

I suggest deleting the entire "background" section and just keep/improve on the usage sections for now. 38.32.32.42 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Mostly an opinion piece

Agree with the user above. Most of the introduction and "background" rely on far too many unproven assumptions. The article as a whole reads as if this term is used far more frequently than it really is. It is really a term only used by a small subset of academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1A10:7802:90CC:3E1F:D530:68EB (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove all non "Reliable Sources"

Specific cleanup of this article can be achieved by removal of all non WP:RS. Once these are removed it may be easier to decide objectively if this is original research w/o reliable sources.

Many citations are from organizations that qualify as WP:RS but are opinion articles thus "Statements of Opinion". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

Other sources are self-published blogs. Existing on the Internet is not a qualification as a WP:RS. i.e. citation from a self-published wordpress blog about page in lede was removed (https://womynscentre.wordpress.com/why-the-y/) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) Eturk001 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

From the introduction "It has been used in a similar manner as womyn and wimmin, as a rejection of the English-only etymology of 'woman' from Old English wifmon (wife-man).[2] " The claim that wifmon means wife-man is not supported in the link to the English etymology or the citation. From the English only etymology linked 'In Old English, wīfmann meant "female human"' 50.37.233.117 (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul\rewrite

Hello, at the request of the 1000 Women in Religion WikiProject, I have revamped and rewritten this article. Also, I agree with the opinions expressed above regarding this article's tone and references. The draft is in one of my sandboxes, User:Figureskatingfan/Sandbox 5. All interested parties please take a look and tell me what you think; once we get a consensus about my draft's content, I'll replace this article's current content and paste in my version.

I also wanted to explain some of my changes. I did a google search, a google book search, and a google scholar search for sources. I found that there aren't a lot of sources about the topic, since the term is a recent invention. Most of the sources used the term without explaining the reasons or history of the term, so I didn't include them because if I did, this article would just be a list of every person, group, and organization that uses it. I don't think that's within the scope of this article, which should focus on its history and etymology.

I removed the sections about uses in the different countries, mostly because the references in these sections aren't reliable and only list that the countries and organizations that use the term, not why. Then I included notable instances of its use, with as reliable sources as possible, like the Seattle march and the U.K. museum. I also listed the universities that use womxn in their promotions.

Again, please discuss, especially what should be added. I'm not as familiar with feminist and LGBTQ issues, so please take note of the article's tone. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As per the above, and after waiting seven days, I have cut and paste the new content here. There was some discussion, centered on my sandbox's talk page, that I will move here. Thanks, hope I've made it better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please cite only reliable sources

Thanks for the effort to rewrite this article. However, immediately in the first few words of the lede, the #1 citation is student-published blog. The author, Maria: "Maria is a sophomore at Franciscan University of Steubenville. That doesn't seem to be a WP:RS.

Please remove all text and citations from non-reliable sources so we can review your version for submission. Eturk001 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Eturk001, I have removed the un-RS as per your suggestion. I believe that it should now be acceptable. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

better. '

1) Can we consider "Urban Dictionary" a WP:RS?

Although it's not technically a reliable source because it's a user-generated site, there's a case to accept it for this article because the Urban Dictionary defines newer words. I think that if Dictionary.com didn't include it, we couldn't make the case for accepting the UD. There's also a case for it helping make the article comprehensive. I think that there are times we need to break the policy about RS in order to be comprehensive, as long as it's done rarely and prudently. We can also put a note on the article's talk page explaining why we've included it. When and/or if the term becomes more widespread, and more is written about it, we can use other more RS than the UD.

I disagree. UD doesn't fail the criteria for WP:RS on a technicality, it is very substantively not reliable in content. It is a website to which anybody can add entries with little to no moderation and no mechanism for verification. Definitions are ranked by their up-vote to down-vote count, like on Reddit. To be honest, I would characterize it as the diametric opposite of a reliable source, and as especially unreliable even compared only to other user-generated content online. The article makes significant claims that are attributed only to UD and not corroborated by any other source, which strikes me as problematic (many definitions are personal in-jokes, irony, pop culture references, vehemently biased, random nonsense, etc.). It is almost like citing 4chan. I do not think that its inclusion is justified in the name of trying to comprehensively define a new word. I was a little surprised to find it cited in the first place. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove it, although if this is unacceptable to anyone they are free to revert my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.208.132 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that two policies are in conflict here, WP:V and broadness/comprehensiveness. One is not more important than the other, and sometimes you have to give up part of one to fulfill the other. I stand by my previous assertion that in this one case, although UD isn't the most reliable source, it assists with broadness, so I think that we should keep it here. One of the reasons there isn't a more reliable source for the content it supports is that the term is a relatively new one, and for now, until more is written about it, it's the best one we have. This talk page will reflect it, so instead of categorically removing the content, it should remain as is, for now. This article doesn't even fulfill the criteria for GA, mostly because it's not long or broad enough, at least not yet. It doesn't need to; most WP articles don't and probably never will. Why should this small, obscure, relatively unimportant article be under the extra scrutiny that most others aren't, especially since it's not going through any of our review procedures like GAN or FAC? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thing: when you remove content like you did, you need to make sure you don't orphan any references that were left behind. A bot came by later and rescued them, but it still made more work for someone else. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

My bad re: orphaning references. I have nothing else to add to this conversation, although I still tend towards thinking UD shouldn't be used as a source. Go ahead in adding it back in if you deem that the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.208.132 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Which guideline are you referring to with "broadness/comprehensiveness"? WP:Comprehensive relates to the intentional censorship of information due to potentially illegal or unethical consequences, so I don't believe it applies here (also, the page on WP:COMPREHENSIVE states that is is overridden by WP:V). It seems to me that if broadness/completeness is pursued even in the absence of RS, then we just end up with a lot of articles full of very detailed but very unverified information, which seems less encyclopedic to me than a small amount of information that can be verified. I second 71.191.208.132's point that UD is simply not reliable under any circumstances. That there are no better sources does not mean that WP:RS should be broken; it means that the unverifiable information should not be included. As far as I am aware, highlighting the potentially inaccurate nature of an article on its talk page is not a typical alternative to reliable citation or removal. I suggest this not because of the criteria for GA, but because of WP:V, which every Wikipedia article should fulfill regardless of size. If there are not enough RS to make anything but a stub, then the entire article should be merged or deleted as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Justin Kunimune (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

2) Using "Many advocacy groups..." in the lede also may be suggesting it's a bigger movement that it is (promotion). One may find random university blogs but I wouldn't say "many". Better to keep this encyclopedic about what it is rather than venture into deciding or implying level of cultural acceptance.

I have removed the offending word.

3) the intro pronunciation looks odd. 1st "woman" is listed then "womanx", but the "x" is before the "n". Do we have an RS that shows it doesn't follow English phonetic rules and is "womanx" not "wom" + "x" + "n"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eturk001 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There were no sources that support the "wom" + "x" + "n" pronunciation. And no source explains the reason for it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Does "womxn" deserve it's own page?

Posting a re-write may not be sufficient as a strategy to remove the flags on the article in general as being more than a promotional piece.

On looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womyn, which mentions "womxn", and some of the same text about the rational for a new spelling of "woman", might the best solution be to delete this article completely and make sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womyn is complete? It seems this article exists only to advance a new alternative competitor to other spellings, rather than a new concept the word represents.47.154.17.49 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, anonymous IP. According to this article, the term "womyn" excludes trans women, while "womxn" is more inclusionary. I highly suggest that you get an account and username; it'd add to your credibility in discussions like this. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "womxn" and "womyn" should be merged into an article titled "Alternative spellings of 'woman'", or something like that. Both articles are stubs, and the secondary sources seem to mostly mention them together. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. An "Alternative spellings of 'woman'" page makes sense. --DickLittleHat (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, of course. First of all, neither this article or Womyn are stubs. There's nothing wrong with stubs, you know. They give a space for topics that are new and undeveloped. I think we can anticipate that this article will eventually be written about more, so it should have its own article that will most likely be expanded later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looking over it again, I may agree with Christine. I think I overestimated the fraction of this article that had been sourced from Urban Dictionary. I do think a merge would work, but I also think there's enough here to warrant keeping it as its own article. Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this does not deserve its own article. It's not a notable topic and is by no means of encyclopedic quality. A mere paragraph in the woman article would be sufficient.--Tallard (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. This term has had multiple incidents receiving large amounts of coverage, the term itself has received some levels of coverage outside of these incidents, and the term was defined in Dictionary.com. Regardless of your personal opinion of the term itself, in my opinion the term has enough relevant information to cover in terms of its definition and controversy (all cited in this article) to be notable enough to receive a full page instead of a simple paragraph in another article. As for the encyclopedic part, I do feel that the article does a decent enough job of showing the reasoning behinfd the term, the definition, and its controversy, without taking one particular side. Doomhiker (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Add a section to discuss controversies

The controversies of the term womxn are touched upon but barely discussed. No thought is given to the objections among non-binary people that the term “womxn” seeks to combine both women and non-binary folk in a way that conflates them, or portrays non-binary folk as an different type of women rather then separate gender entirely. OddTetrapod (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@OddTetrapod: I share you obvious frustration with this small article. The reason why the items you list aren't included in the article is because no one has been able to find reliable, secondary sources to support your assertions. Once we either find them or they appear somewhere, they'll be added. If we added the information you request, it would constitute original research, which isn't allowed here on Wikipedia. My regrets. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

An entire section strikes me as potentially overkill given how short this article is, but at the very least I think it makes sense to add some discussion of that to the "Current uses" section. I found this opinion piece from Insider that can be used as a source: https://www.insider.com/using-the-phrase-womxn-doesnt-mean-youre-trans-inclusive-2021-3 Justin Kunimune (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is just a TERF thing

Something about TERF's not wanting the term "women" to refer to trans women. Also there's no such thing as a "non-binary woman", that would be "AFAB". Zorya's Leshak (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"nonbinary women" was fixed to "nonbinary people"in latest edit. Blackjackrobo (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Source 2 is a Blog and author marketing products

Source 2 is a blog that markets products. The author of the article referenced also involved in SEO and the marketing of products.

https://yourdaye.com/vitals/cultural-musings/what-is-the-meaning-of-womxn/

https://monicakarpinski.com/ Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

 The Etymology section reads as original research.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries

websites such as dictionary.com are not legitimate sources of dictionary material. The spelling womxn is a political motivated revamp of a word clearly defining the human female. This is an affirmation that the community pushing this is attempting to change the meaning of male and female and not just gender norms. There is no spelling womxn in any published dictionary. 104.139.29.103 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349#Reliability of dictionary.com. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, the spelling "womxn" is published in the OED Third Edition as of 2021:

Women. Also occasionally as singular: a woman.

The spelling womxn has been adopted by some as a more inclusive alternative to womyn (womyn n.), which is perceived as marginalizing certain groups, especially ethnic minority and transgender women. For others, womxn is itself an exclusionary term…

Justin Kunimune (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Oooh! Good find! That should probably be added to the article in the definition section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)