Jump to content

Talk:Botanical sexism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

I'm not seeing many peer-reviewed sources that cover this topic, it mostly seems to be a medi8a trend stemming from the TikTok that went viral a little while ago. I'm not sure it actually merits a stand alone article.--Kevmin § 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: i see 24 possibilities on Scholar. There’s also the book. And btw I think that that photo needs more text to link it to the body. Cheers --awkwafaba (📥) 01:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources pulled by g.scholar run into the spectrum of quality to not reliable so 24 is a nebulous number at best. The book MAY provide more, but will still be a very stubby article at best.--Kevmin § 02:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

[edit]

@Kevmin: why do you consider the article biased? --awkwafaba (📥) 16:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

awkwafaba there is currently only a single sentence that covers criticism of the Botanical sexism hypothesis, thus the majority of the article is tilted towards the concept being accepted and valid. additionally the last sentence is very vague and handwavy, not addressing any specifics at all, while the rest off the article calls out specifics and heavily relies on news articles which are noted to be poor science topic sources.--Kevmin § 19:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin I have added a criticism section. Does this address your concerns? Finq (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expanded Criticism section looks good indeed, and since this has been a bit of a flash in the pan topic, I think its good for now as nothing huge seems to be happening now on either side.--Kevmin § 18:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]