378:- thank you for each piece of constructive criticism, thank you in the highest order to WebHamster for an incredible clean up job (I have no idea how you did that) and thank you to Aqthoclea for suggesting Wiki styles and methods not yet known to me. I appreciate the POV perspective and humbly suggest that the Power and Control Over Women IS POV as is the Power and Control over Men, it seems to me however that with each on opposite sides of a scale the equal NPOV. OR the male perspective was peer reviewed without adverse comment through private letters, hence it is published and peer reviewed.That perspective has existed for over twenty years. The female perspective was simply inserted into the Public Domain purposefully with out claim to author or copyright. This persepctive has existed for more than thirty years.Both absolutely began as novel narratives of proposed conditions: they now have existed for so long as to be accepted concepts. The original Power and Control Wheel is now found in USA Government manuals and I have made request of friends on the cite, permission to cite and license to include. I am following a similar approach on the Power and Control over Males Wheel. The Power and Control concept as a political tool, and both wheels, are rambling, incoherent and probably less than precise and yet find their way into serious public policy discussions. There has been an assertion that the article is diatribe, I personally see no bitterness, abusive speech or satire: I do find it ironic to need to defend an effort at definition and illustration of political tools and concepts that have existed for decades. I apologise for my tardiness, cut and paste just is not working for me: I loose text, cites, hyperlinks et al, I do not know why. I apologise for this lengthy debate entry, if knowledge is power, than I seek only to impart some small part of power to each Wiki reader from some small understanding of a concept that has been used in the western world for a considerable period of time.
472:
global patriarchy and oppose gender neutral lanquage, on the other side is the other half of the world who assert their own instances of injustice and rights. A consistent problem has been weak empirical evidence, propaganda and POV discussions rather than NPOV. I really hope a Wiki editor complains about "so you got references, why are they not cited above" as in getting the little numbers next to the points in the body that the references substantiate. Other than caffiene, I am undrugged despite assertions to the contrary, and yet for them and my resultant smile - thank you: I have tried the style guide and help, and have to date, gotten no where.
642:
poorly formatted refs and foot notes, I cede without hesitation that the footnotes need reconcilliation, I intend to do that. Some may disagree, but I am not trying to advance a position, I hope the perception of synth comes from the footnote situation. Coments regarding POV are also welcome, I have attempted to correct that situation but remain unsure of my success.Thank you to everyone who has offered critiques
314:- Personally, I don't believe an article should be created until the author has the article mostly or completely finished. I've seen in the Newpages have a dozen times, an article that reads nothing but "Don't delete this, I'll work on it later". If an article does not yet meet stub requirements, it shouldn't be added to Knowledge (XXG).
495:
not say "Most notably obnoxious in the first Power and
Control Wheel is the Economic Portion..." but rather something like "The Economic portion has been criticised by John Doe for 'denying budgets as a relevant family finance tool' (reference), but was defended by Joe Bloggs as '...' (another reference)". Also read
458:
Comment - You have done an admirable job of tidying up the article, and making it more coherent and readable, so many thanks. However, the article does still fall short, in that it's still littered with POV and unreferenced claims, and I'm not sure whether directly repeating the content of the wheel
571:
This is an original research diatribe. There is nothing that can be salvaged here. The sources cited are not actually being used in an encyclopedic manner. Just because it "looks" like an article with good formatting does not mean that there is any encyclopedic content. Someone with some writing
471:
Got a few more references in, and will substantiate "unreferenced claims", again sorry I am so slow. POV is a problem: there are essentailly two opposing POVs; again I assert that- two opposing POVS presented together net a NPOV, and yet I acknowledge the concern. On one side is a group who assert a
641:
could be talking about until I clicked first note that I got to, generally in the ball park, it probably is not my intended
Footnote, Please be aware that others have been kind enough to help with formatting, and that there have been a few Foot Note and Reference additions: More importantly I added
494:
throughly before you make any more edits. Too much of it still reads like a partisan essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. In particular, note that statements which are obviously matters of opinion need to be removed or else clearly ascribed to someone, not presented as fact. For example, do
572:
skills appropriate to
Knowledge (XXG)'s encyclopedic style could start from scratch writing an article about the "Power and Control Wheel" graphic, but nothing from this article (other than the graphic itself) would be useful for the new article.
490:
An AfD discussion lasts for five days, so no need to drug yourself up with caffeine to get it finished :-) - there's plenty of time to improve the article. However, I suggest that you you read
654:
In addition to the footnote reconcilliation, there are Wiki links to articles not yet written: Interpersonal relationships, misandry caucus to name but two, yes I have work to do.
127:
527:
I have added a few references and links, I have a whole body of empirical studies to reference yet, I truly need to get a few other things done first though.
366:- in an effort to at least make it readable I've re-formatted the article and done a basic wikification. You never know it may sway someone's vote :) --
298:- it's an amazing article, the author is clearly working on it to provide references, detail and cleanliness. I cannot stress enough it must be kept.
625:. Even uses wikipedia as a "source". I don't think it's possible to clean this up. Even if it is notable, it would be best just to start over.
100:
95:
104:
419:
87:
17:
543:, if you have more salient information, go ahead and post it, but don't give the impression you're trying to "stack" the debate.
415:
539:
Just in case it wasn't clear, this is really pointless, and you're making your own side look dumb. Make your opinion known
354:- find some references for the poor newbie, and show what an encyclopedia is. The subject is fine, the article blows. --
673:
36:
449:
I have added but a few references but I must sleep, friends are arriving to add links, references et al please hold on
459:
is some sort of copyvio or not. I will try to address these concerns myself when I have more time later today.
672:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
658:
646:
629:
613:
588:
576:
563:
547:
531:
519:
503:
476:
463:
453:
441:
399:
382:
370:
358:
346:
330:
318:
306:
290:
274:
254:
233:
209:
189:
177:
163:
151:
138:
69:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
302:
Knowledge (XXG) must begin to look at these articles, and not destroy them, but allow people to improve them.
198:
391:
64:
91:
197:
due to original research essay and lack of references. No prejudice against a sourced re-creation titled
411:
315:
499:
and in particular the section on synthesis, as I think there's a bit of this in the article. Best,
585:
584:
Needs cleanup and a great deal of format and NPOV work. Deletion of some OR wouldn't hurt either.(
407:
515:
I have labeled BobV01's three independent votes as "first, second, and third". Early and often...
202:
560:
438:
57:
355:
83:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
491:
263:
53:
243:
pending cleanup and sourcing. It looks as though there is the makings of an article here. --
622:
602:
598:
496:
267:
638:
626:
573:
367:
287:
219:
49:
637:
I have, today, requested some reviews of the article, to date. I wondered what on Earth
460:
327:
303:
186:
160:
148:
429:
as OR or at least SYNTH. The only cited reference is another
Knowledge (XXG) article.
431:
206:
621:
Many of the sources don't even mention the text their supporting. Contains a lot of
147:- utterly incoherent, unstructured rambling original research, with no references.
544:
516:
343:
244:
223:
174:
121:
655:
643:
606:
528:
500:
473:
450:
379:
283:
271:
135:
185:
Wow! what an article. It could be rewritten to be more clear etc--
218:
per Oli. It still sounds like a diatribe. Not to mention failing
201:
which has numerous Ghits in domestic violence programs like this
666:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
326:- Well, take it off then, if the author can back it up.
286:
and created due to a possibility of a meds imbalance. --
159:
I doubt it's original research but it could be clearer--
117:
113:
109:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
404:Awesome! Accurate, but references would be good.
676:). No further edits should be made to this page.
559:per nom, riduculous original-research essay.
8:
173:, not much more to say here, just ... wow.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
623:synthesis of published material
262:Barely coherent essay - highly
1:
659:17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
647:17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
630:16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
614:16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
589:03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
577:20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
564:00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
70:18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
266:, with a good smattering of
548:15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
532:15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
520:14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
504:16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
477:14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
464:08:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
454:05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
442:04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
400:02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
383:01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
371:23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
359:22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
347:22:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
331:21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
319:21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
307:21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
291:21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
275:21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
255:01:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
234:20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
210:20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
190:20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
178:20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
164:20:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
152:20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
139:20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
693:
134:An unreferenced diatribe.
296:STRONG STRONG STRONG keep
669:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
199:Power and control wheel
420:few or no other edits
388:Keep per Rocksanddirt
422:outside this topic.
390:but get get sources.
597:- the article is a
603:original research
423:
84:Power and Control
76:Power and Control
50:original research
684:
671:
611:
440:
436:
405:
396:
395::) Dlohcierekim
252:
249:
231:
228:
125:
107:
67:
62:
34:
692:
691:
687:
686:
685:
683:
682:
681:
680:
674:deletion review
667:
607:
432:
430:
394:
376:first keep vote
342:OR - gotta go.
316:TheInfinityZero
250:
245:
229:
224:
98:
82:
79:
65:
58:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
690:
688:
679:
678:
662:
661:
649:
632:
616:
601:and therefore
592:
579:
566:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
509:
508:
507:
506:
482:
481:
480:
479:
466:
456:
444:
424:
402:
385:
361:
349:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
293:
277:
257:
238:
212:
192:
180:
168:
167:
166:
132:
131:
78:
73:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
689:
677:
675:
670:
664:
663:
660:
657:
653:
650:
648:
645:
640:
636:
633:
631:
628:
624:
620:
619:Strong Delete
617:
615:
612:
610:
604:
600:
596:
593:
590:
587:
583:
580:
578:
575:
570:
567:
565:
562:
561:wikipediatrix
558:
555:
549:
546:
542:
538:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
518:
514:
511:
510:
505:
502:
498:
493:
489:
486:
485:
484:
483:
478:
475:
470:
467:
465:
462:
457:
455:
452:
448:
445:
443:
439:
437:
435:
428:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
403:
401:
398:
397:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
362:
360:
357:
353:
350:
348:
345:
341:
338:
332:
329:
325:
322:
321:
320:
317:
313:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
297:
294:
292:
289:
285:
281:
278:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
258:
256:
253:
248:
242:
239:
236:
235:
232:
227:
221:
217:
213:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
191:
188:
184:
181:
179:
176:
172:
169:
165:
162:
158:
155:
154:
153:
150:
146:
145:Strong delete
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
63:
61:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
668:
665:
651:
634:
618:
608:
594:
581:
568:
556:
540:
536:
524:
512:
487:
468:
446:
433:
426:
392:
387:
375:
363:
356:Rocksanddirt
351:
339:
323:
311:
299:
295:
279:
259:
246:
240:
225:
215:
214:
194:
182:
170:
156:
144:
133:
59:
52:with strong
45:
43:
31:
28:
418:) has made
639:Neitherday
627:Neitherday
582:Weak Keep.
574:OfficeGirl
368:WebHamster
288:WebHamster
56:problems.
599:synthesis
461:Oli Filth
328:Porterjoh
304:Porterjoh
282:- as per
241:Weak Keep
237:See below
187:Pheonix15
183:Weak Keep
161:Pheonix15
149:Oli Filth
586:RookZERO
434:Dbromage
416:contribs
408:Chadleek
207:Canuckle
128:View log
60:Krakatoa
652:Comment
635:Comment
545:Eleland
537:Comment
525:Comment
517:Eleland
513:Comment
492:WP:NPOV
488:Comment
469:Comment
447:Comment
393:Cheers,
364:Comment
344:MarkBul
324:Comment
312:Comment
175:Eleland
157:Comment
101:protect
96:history
656:BobV01
644:BobV01
609:Cailil
595:Delete
569:Delete
557:Delete
529:BobV01
501:Iain99
497:WP:NOR
474:BobV01
451:BobV01
427:Delete
380:BobV01
340:Delete
300:Surely
284:Iain99
280:Delete
272:Iain99
260:Delete
251:figura
230:figura
216:Delete
195:Delete
171:Delete
136:Alksub
105:delete
46:delete
220:WP:RS
122:views
114:watch
110:links
66:Katie
16:<
541:once
412:talk
352:keep
222:. --
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
264:POV
203:one
126:– (
54:POV
605:--
414:•
406:—
270:.
268:OR
205:.
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
48:-
591:)
410:(
247:B
226:B
130:)
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.