User talk:Littlecarrotgold

Welcome!

Hello, Littlecarrotgold, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Tradwife does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert your original research in articles and make sure to accurately describe your edits in edit summaries. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki page seemed very bias in favour of left wing movements, therefore I wished to balance it out. Personally I do not think the page correctly nor accurately depicted the definition of the traditional housewife. The real meaning behind it was not fully explained and therefore I felt the page needed some heart in it and some solid foundations. May I ask, is Wikipedia a left wing organisation? I feel most of it is full of political bias and therefore your point about it being a information trove of neutral fact-based pages does not fit the reality of what I have read on here. Indeed it is a progressive platform with subtle yet effective political correctness running through each of these definitions. There most certainly seems to be a double standard. Wikipedia is far from neutral. Littlecarrotgold (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That is not a justification to insert original research and remove sourced content. By the way, neutral point of view means sticking to what the sources say. I am not claiming that it is free from bias since nothing is. If you want to add more content about the concept, you can freely do so but you will need to cite sources too. The content on Wikipedia comes from sources. Nothing is invented here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok that's fair.

all the best. Littlecarrotgold (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]