Talk:Genderqueer: Difference between revisions
(→Reader feedback: I feel this post repeats its...: new section) |
imported>NumerousScorpions (→Original research: new section) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
It's an interesting comment, but I don't really know how to fix it (I wish they had given us examples!). The problem seems to be that specialised terms are not defined, but most of them are actually linked to the corresponding article. Any thoughts? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC) | It's an interesting comment, but I don't really know how to fix it (I wish they had given us examples!). The problem seems to be that specialised terms are not defined, but most of them are actually linked to the corresponding article. Any thoughts? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
== Original research == | |||
I feel that this page suffers from an "original research" problem, in Wikipedia parlance-- it currently makes sweeping claims without citing specific sources. There are so many assertions here that aren't well-supported. | |||
I think it would be better to engage with specific written sources and attempt to synthesize the definitions given there. The "History" section does a decent job of that. | |||
--[[User:NumerousScorpions|NumerousScorpions]] ([[User talk:NumerousScorpions|talk]]) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:20, 5 December 2020
Reader feedback: I feel this post repeats its...
24.205.86.181 posted this comment on 6 June 2018 (view all feedback).
I feel this post repeats itself a lot instead of really diving into what the definition might be. It keeps reusing terms that aren't really described except by using other terms that also need to be described. I believe I am genderqueer which is why I am reading this page, but I feel like it is not giving me any insight because of how it is written.
It's an interesting comment, but I don't really know how to fix it (I wish they had given us examples!). The problem seems to be that specialised terms are not defined, but most of them are actually linked to the corresponding article. Any thoughts? --NeoMahler (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Original research
I feel that this page suffers from an "original research" problem, in Wikipedia parlance-- it currently makes sweeping claims without citing specific sources. There are so many assertions here that aren't well-supported.
I think it would be better to engage with specific written sources and attempt to synthesize the definitions given there. The "History" section does a decent job of that. --NumerousScorpions (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)