Talk:Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Erasmus quote[edit]

@Andy Dingley: What is the source for your claim that the meaning of Erasmus' quote is "similar" to something in Lakoff's work? If you are unable or unwilling to provide a reliable source directly supporting your claim, please stop adding it to the article.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the title. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Try answering the question I asked. In which reliable source is it written that there is any relation of any kind whatsoever between Erasmus and Lakoff?--Anders Feder (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there doesn't seem to be any reference from Lakoff to Erasmus. Yet Erasmus (actually an unnamed classical Greek, cited by Erasmus) gave the same grouping as the Dyirbal, even though this grouping (as is discussed by Lakoff) seemingly at odds with a modern, Western categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the conclusion that there is a relation between Lakoff and Erasmus is not explicitly stated by any of the available reliable sources, it can't be reached or implied in the article.[1] Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of us as editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before it can be added.[2] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.[3]--Anders Feder (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]