mic_none

Talk:Patriarchy المصدر: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patriarchy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hell ghost69.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evaholly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 7 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabelditzler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political neutrality violations[edit]

The concept of a Patriarchy is similar to the ideas of other ideologies in the shared basis in reality; it is not an objective, tangible fact, so much as it is a political truth based off of the world around us. This article fails enormously in its duty to remain politically neutral, it fails in every sense of the word, never once mentioning that it is a political theory, I don't want a politically based storm in the Talk page, I am just pointing out that Wikipedia should be politically neutral, to avoid bias, this article does not reflect anything more than political ramblings, it is not an objective, apolitical view of the theory, instead, it is thinly veiled political pandering and blind bias. In my opinion, I believe that the entire article must be rewritten from an ***Apolitical*** perspective, lest this article remain drenched in political bias. 2603:9001:6000:6285:3822:E795:E0E:92C8 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia articles have no duty to remain politically neutral. In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for the late response, yet I would argue that the lack of neutrality violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view, instead of talking about the Patriarchy in a neutral setting, it takes a side. Wikipedia even has a page dedicated to how articles shouldn't be biased, and shouldn't take sides. No article should, directly or indirectly, support any viewpoint without the highest necessity, Wikipedia articles must view, say, the Battle of Gettysburg as a military engagement between the Union and Confederate forces, not as a climactic defeat of the Confederacy by the illustrious Union, or as a sorrow defeat of the poor Confederates, instead, it should ignore both arguments and focus on getting fact, not opinion into the article. In my original proposal, I mentioned that the article is taking a side, and is not politically neutral. I mentioned how it failed to ignore opinion, that is what I believe is the source of a potential misunderstanding, which I wish to correct. I intend no modification of by belief that the article should conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, it's political bias is inherently contradictory to this. I wish no offense to it's creator(s), nor insult unto them, but rather, I wish, truly I do, for a simple correction to be so, in my opinion, necessarily allocated. With regards and upmost sincerity. Markovich Rashkolnikov (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what neutrality means on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV. -- Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unbalanced article[edit]

It's easily evident when comparing it to the matriarchy article, the patriarchy article is written in a negative way, automatically adjudicating it terms such as dominate, exploitation, oppression, etc while the matriarchy article is more neutral (Which is the right way to make an article), clearly demonstrating a political bias in this article. I'm not stating that these two social systems are good or bad, I'm only pointing out the obvious bias, which conflicts with the logic of the definitions: Matriarchy is patriarchy but with the positions swapped, nothing else, and the results of these systems doesn't influence what they are by themselves, at any case, this should be in a category about the impacts on society or criticism.

This is not a neutral point of view, and should be improved, so I left the unbalanced template (I didn't improve the article because I'm not very experienced, so I leave the task to anyone interested) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.149.130 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Neutral point of view" on Wikipedia means adhering to the predominant views expressed in reliable sources. If you disagree with the sources cited in the article, then feel free to present your own. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have enough time or interest to search more neutral sources, so I'll leave the unbalanced template so anyone interested can correct it.
Stop reverting the edit or you'll end up exposing yourself as very biased like the writers of this article. 186.18.149.130 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:CLEANUPTAG: "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article." Since you are apparently uninterested in trying to fix the perceived problem, there's no justification for tagging the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]