From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heteronormativity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
|
|
|
|
Article policies
|
 |
Heteronormativity has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class. |
| This article is part of WikiProject Critical Theory, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to critical theory on Wikipedia. We have prepared a list of other articles in the field of critical theory. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating. |
[edit] Popular culture
Would a section of current examples in popular culture be a good addition? There's always several songs in the Top 40 that strongly convey heteronormative ideas. Herorev 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, you think so? Can you give an example of a song you see as heteronormative? (I'm kind of out-of-touch with popular culture, but I haven't noticed any heteronormativity to speak of.) And secondly, please see WP:NPOV and WP:V, two of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies; do you think such a section could abide by them? —RuakhTALK 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ruakh is correct. Examples of hetronormativity (or of any other concept) must not be original research. If some has published a reliable book about Heteronormativity in pop culture source that - otherwise such additions would fall under the category of original research--Cailil 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV tag
I have tagged this article as NPOV. There is no discussion of various views either throughout history or in the modern era with regards to biological sex, sex, gender, gender roles etc... the article simply asserts one particular outlook on these issues as though they were a universally agreed on fact. (RookZERO 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC))
- This statement: "the article simply asserts one particular outlook on these issues as though they were a universally agreed on fact" seems wrong to me. Like, so wrong that I'm having difficulty assuming good faith on your part. It's true that the article doesn't do a great job discussing all the various viewpoints, but it seems to me that wherever it is discussing one, it makes it clear that it's discussing one viewpoint; for example, it constantly uses phrases like "those who subscribe to heteronormativity" (meaning "those who believe that heteronormativity exists"). Can you give an example where the article assumes one outlook as correct? —RuakhTALK 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure. One reads "Transgender people often seek gender reassignment therapy, thereby violating the assumption that only unambiguous female or male bodies exist." Surely the authors realize that this is not universally agreed to? (RookZERO 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC))
-
-
- Oh, good call; my apologies for doubting you. Indeed, the entire first paragraph of the transgender section seems very unapologetically POV, now that I read it with an eye toward that. —RuakhTALK 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
