Contents

Talk:Botanical sexism

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horticulture and Gardening Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Plants Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Society / Pulmonology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force.

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]

@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]