Talk:Herstory

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gracemurk, 11crystal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Since no one seems to be able to come up with a source for this and it appears to be non-notable, I'm proposing it for deletion. --Xombie 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Delete. It is not that "no one" is able - 'No One" has tried. I am a linguist and I have spent the past week emailing a number of my older lingiust mentors in search of the definitive origins and usage of this word. It is used widely by Lesbian authors to differentiate their history from that of the general population. This article is not currently NPOV but I will strive to bring it up to date and into line with standards. I would like to be given at least a month to rewrite this. Deleting this before then would serve no useful purpose. Thanks Lisapollison 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added as many citations and details as I felt necessary. Another kind editor or editors had already laid the perfect groundwork for me. Many thanks. I believe this article is now NPOV and informative to standards. however, if anyone wishes more citations or work, please state what you'd like done here and I will do my best to comply. Lisapollison 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point of the two "external references". These are just links to "Women's history" (and woman's self-esteem) references. This doesn't have much to do with herstory per se, does it? They don't use the term far as I can see (but one site is German, which I don't read). What is the relevance? Phiwum 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the two "external references", since I still don't see how they pertain to an article on "Herstory". If I missed some relevance, please feel free to replace them — and explain what I overlooked. Thanks. Phiwum 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This still appears to be nothing more than a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedic article. I fail to see why this word is deserving of its own article, even if it is commonly used. The type of article that it is now (definition, usage, etymology, etc), I could copy-paste and make for any random word in the dictionary. Simple definitions are non-encyclopedic. If this were a new article I would agree that it has potential, but the article has existed for several years and has yet to be fleshed out, it is well past due for it to be merged into another article on feminism or historical revisionism. --Xombie 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Wouldn't Hertory be a better name, since History-His-=-tory, Her-+-tory=Hertory?

Principally yes. But the usual word-play interprets "history" as "his story" (it sounds like "his story if spoken) and so they invented the term "her story" or "herstory" respectively.

I have added an explanation of the false etymology of the word to the article. I believe that any questions you may have about the term can now be answered by the text.


I keep posting Women in Cuba (Herstory) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba#Women_in_Cuba_.28Herstory.29 and some idiots keep deleting it. Go see it while it lasts. El Jigue 1/19/06

The usage in Sisterhood is Powerful quoted in the article appears to be a portmanteau of heresy and history. Шизомби 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the LGBT world "herstory" is pretty common and this article addresses the usage of that word. Benjiboi 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


When is it going to be called ourstory? 203.211.113.83 (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reverts that gut the meaning[edit]

I am saddened by the reverts of my recent edits which gut the meaning of the article. The term is NOT a pun. It is an example of false etymology or faux amis. If you don't know the difference between a pun and those temrs, take the time to acquaint yourself with them. Taking those details out and further gutting my edit will only help strengthen the argument for deletion since they muddy the origin of the term. I know some people are dearly attached to the idea that the word is a [pun]] but it is NOT and none of the sources I could find of actual linguists refer to it as such. It is innapropriate and misleading to keep reverting to the description of the word as a pun. I put considerable time and effort into updating this article to save it from deletion. I respectfully request that my last edit on etymology be reverted. Lisapollison 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any citation for saying that the word is a pun? If there isn't we shouldn't be putting it in the article. --Xombie 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xombie - there is no credible citation that I can find but there is one User who is bound and determined to keep the word in the definition and reverts every edit that takes it out. See the history of the edits for more info. I believe that this stems from either a stubborn misunderstanding of what a 'pun' actually is or, from a determined attempt to undermine the crediblity of the term by reducing it to a joke. Herstory is a Neologism and NOT a Pun. The terms are not interchangeable and are not even similar in meaning. if you want to take up the good fight to get the word 'pun' out of this article - more power to you. it will only continue to be reverted. The constant re-insertion of the word 'pun' into this article should be viewed as vandalism IMO Lisapollison 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the term derived from a pun? Reading the word history as his story is a homophonic pun, is it not? Not sure what my point is, but I just thought I'd mention it! :) Martin 14:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heralaya[edit]

Himalaya is also gender biased - it suggests that only men can climb mountains. Oh, you don't think so? Then delete this moronic article. Haizum 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny point about Himalaya, but I don't think this a moronic article at all. You may feel how some people use the term to be ridiculous, but the point of the article is to explain the concept and its use. It's not a defense of its use. As a matter of fact, the word is often used in hit-and-run vandalism to replace the word 'history' in Wikipedia. Twalls 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary this sucker. Haizum 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

Herstory is a term which originated as a neologism. – that sounds quite tautological, on a first read. After all, aren't all terms new when they are created? However, I suppose the idea is to say that it is a constructed term, as opposed to something that slowly grew to use. Is there a better way to word this? /skagedal... 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word has been used in feminist literature since its inception. - The linked article cites feminist literature earlier than the late 1960's-1970 (given variously as the earliest usage of the term). Please rectify -- perhaps "its inception" refers to the word, not to feminist literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.180.134 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

This article seems completely one sided, since it presents absolutely no critical views of the term (it was, after all, invented by someone who completely misunderstood the etymology of the word "history," making it pointless). Would anyone like to start a criticism section? --HarmonicFeather 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, that would make too much sense; this is Wikipedia. Tyranny of the minority, don't you know? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second the disputed tag btw. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence at all that the first user of the term "herstory" really believed that "history" derives from "his story"? More than likely, the term was adapted because it was a simple way to emphasize feminine history and not as a silly mistake about etymology. But I'm just guessing here, too.
Anyway, the article does mention the possibility of mistaken etymology right there in the introduction. It also explicitly says that "history" does not derive from "his story". So what exactly is the issue? What information would you like to add? What bias do you see in the article? (Note: I personally hate the term "herstory". But I see no particular bias in the article.)
Note also that "Criticisms" sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Critical comments should occur in the existing sections.Phiwum 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe in some of the supporting literature, the term "herstory" is presented in opposition to the "sexist" term "'his'tory," as the intro to the article intimates. The biases I see stem from the fact that the article cites the history of the term, claims that it was intended to be used seriously, helped to change school curriculum, and continues to be used in published works. Aside from the introduction, one would think that there was almost no controversy to its usage. --HarmonicFeather 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's examine these one at a time.
  • The term was intended to be used seriously (as well as humorously). The article gives a reference.
  • The term helped change school curricula. Uncited, so I added a tag.
  • Continues to be used in published works. Clear citation proving this point.
(Note: I have not checked the references, so I can't vouch for them.) The article also suggests that some scholars find the term divisive and gives a reference. Aside from the introduction, the article consists of a report on how the term is used. This seems perfectly neutral to me. I don't see any particular bias in the article, so I ask again: How would you like it to be changed? What new information should be included? Phiwum 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those questioning the neutrality of the article should provide some sources to support their criticism. Just don't liking the term isn't enough to call the article biased. I don't like it either, but neither do I think the article should take some sort of stance against the term. I've removed the neutrality tag until someone provides more than just personal opinions.
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indent reset. Criticism section added. Please ensure all potentially controversial content is well-sourced and balanced. Benjiboi 01:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Section title removed)[edit]

There has been in my experience a movement to minimize and delete articles of LGBT interest. My documentation of our subculture in such things as look alike contests have been called "silly" "unimportant" and "not worthy". THESE things are part of our Herstory and we must as a community unite. Please contact me so we can have a "queer army" to help in civil discussions on talk pages with this narrow minded fellow editors. Contact me Cr8tiv 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it make you feel to know that you're the result of two breeders having sex? You must really enjoy cognitive dissonance. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to project your intolerance onto me. I've never criticized anyone for being gay. I will however criticize hate speech against heterosexuals in the form of terms like "breeders." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offensive section title. Speaking as a "breeder" who marched in the local Gay Pride parade last month, I have no sympathy for people who use their perceived oppression as an excuse to oppress others. Now can we get back to the article? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please everyone let's keep focussed on improving the article only. Cr8tiv, you will probably get more sustained and constructive help by asking for it in a non-confrontational way. Everyone else let's assume this less-experienced user is simply unaware that this blog-like atmosphere does not diminish the need of civility. Benjiboi 01:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor as source[edit]

I'd like some feedback on the use of Global Language Monitor as a source for the comment that "herstory" is the "third most politically incorrect word of 2006."[1] Concerns:

  • The shiftiness of politically correct (and its inverse) as a concept. Witness the interchangeable use of "correct" and "incorrect" in the press release. Does the ranking mean anything?
  • The misconception perpetuated on the GLM site that "herstory" was coined by people who actually believed the word "history" is derived from "his story."
  • Whether the site can be considered a reliable source. It claims a lot of media attention, and the founder has a book deal, but is this not really an entertainment site? Consider the "GLM Core Staff".[2]
  • The number of careless language errors on the website of a self-styled "language monitor." Frankly I see no excuse for the PC press release to still look as sloppy as it does.

Maybe this could be included in a "trivia" section, but I have difficulty taking the Global Language Monitor seriously. Comments? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thinks it's credible enough, and an interesting source, but their website points out they're referenced by CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc so I'd rather see those more credible sources cited whenever possible. Benjiboi 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not sources for the cited information (the PC list). They are media outlets that have mentioned the GLM website (according to the GLM website, anyway). My guess is that the mentions were mostly "lighter side" content and do not necessarily mark this website as a reliable source. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob. This is a terrible citation, a dull entertainment site with no authority at all. Phiwum 01:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing that a mention is light and calling them dull doesn't diminish that they are potentially doing credible work. Instead of disparaging the reference why not simply replace with a better, more credible source. Even the best of sources had humble beginnings. Benjiboi 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your open approach to the website, Benjiboi, but do not see how I can follow your advice. GLM is the original source for the information that "herstory" was selected as one of the most "politically (in)correct" words of 2006. Quoting CNN reporting the story does not make the selection itself any more or less credible. In this case, whether GLM is a reliable source is the whole issue. I propose removing the passage from this article. Concerns? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source is credible enough for the purposes of the statement it's supporting. Nothing seems to contradict it and no one else seems to be tracking the mangling of language as GLM does with unique language software and methods they developed. Benjiboi 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done and think it puts GLM in a better context. Would like to see a more exact cite of Devoney Looser's book, so readers can go right to the relevant passage(s). But it's a good section and likely to get better as more users contribute. FWIW it's still my opinion that the "politically (in)correct" bit is so much fluff. It also seems to give the word too much importance. Maybe "herstory" still has currency that I'm unaware of, but it seems to me that it has done its part (a limited one), is fading from usage, and is unlikely to see an upswing. This article is about its history, which is notable. This blog essay surveys the question well (except for the fussing about etymology). It might deserve a link from the article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word will be here for a while. Language changes and adapts so the nuances of political correctness and backlash are far from over. A quick Google Book search will pop 500-plus herstory references so I think it's use is far from over. In feminist and LGBT worlds its use is as popular as ever. Benjiboi 06:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the explanation of why the term was classified as "politically incorrect" by GLM, as reported in the cited Reuters article: "In third was 'Herstory' substituting for 'History.' Payack said there are nearly 900,000 Google citations for 'Herstory,' all based on a mistaken assumption that 'history' is a sexist word. 'When Herodotus wrote the first history, the word meant simply an "inquiry,"' he said." This is completely unverifiable - how can Payack of the GLM know whether or not these 900,000 Google searches were based on this premise? From the article itself, as well as the talk page, it seems clear that this is not the only reason to use/search the term herstory. Including this reference seems to support this rather unfounded understanding of herstory and its usage. I suggest that this portion of the article be removed - I did so earlier, but it was reverted; in order to determine why this point should/shouldn't be included, I would appreciate further discussion. I realize that this was discussed above, but no conclusions about its appropriateness seem to have been reached as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.251.182 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the cite either, but it's not clear to me whether deleting it is consistent with WP policy, since it is a verification of the claim that the word comes from mistaken etymology. Now, you doubt the truth of the verification and so do I, but I don't think we should substitute our armchair opinions for a verifiable reference. What we need is a better reference which settles the question, or a confirmation that this cite is not a reliable source. Phiwum (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about the OED entry on herstory (cited liberally in this article), which gives this etymology: "Punning alteration of history n. (fancifully reinterpreted as his story, implying that history has in the past been viewed predominantly from the male perspective), with his- replaced by her." It also includes this definition: "In feminist use: history emphasizing the role of women or told from a woman's point of view; also, a piece of historical writing by or about women." Finally, it gives this example (among others, which don't speak to the issue one way or another): "1976 Miller & Swift Words & Women viii. 135 When women in the movement use herstory, their purpose is to emphasize that women's lives, deeds, and participation in human affairs have been neglected or undervalued in standard histories." (All from the OED online).
As you can see, the OED entry doesn't even make reference to the false etymology claim, nor did an admittedly brief search for such a claim dig up anything from a reputable source. Nevertheless, as you say, the GLM provides "a verification of the claim that the word comes from mistaken etymology." If that's the logic for inclusion, then the GLM reference should be used more explicitly as an example of the supposed "controversy" over the etymology of the term (as it is, that's not how it's presented). To me, the assertion that it's "politically incorrect" without an explanation of why it's considered to be so makes it sound like it's somehow offensive, rather than (allegedly) based on a false etymology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEIMcM (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since no one has voiced any concerns about this change, I'm going to go ahead and make it when I have a spare moment. AEIMcM (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoff Sommers "strident"[edit]

I deleted the word "strident" in reference to the criticism by Ms. Hoff Sommers. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "strident" as "loud and harsh; grating." It is not appropriate for a Wikipedia entry to offer an opinion about whether her opinions are "loud, harsh, or grating." Nicmart (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken[edit]

It says in the intro 'mistakenly restated as "his story"'. If I've undrestood the previous debates correctly it seems that it isn't possible to verify that it was a 'mistake' but a purposeful construction. The editor changed 'ironically' to 'mistakenly'. I think it would be better just to say 'restated as "his story". I'll change it for now. Calindreams (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it a joke?[edit]

I may be wrong, but I have understood that the word ‘herstory’ was originally born as a linguistic joke, a spoof – a pseudo-feminist counterpart for the deliberately misunderstood ‘his story’. Then it was picked up by someone who didn't understand linguistics at all.

Pardon my English; it's a foreign language. Harjasusi (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word based on ignorance or wordplay?[edit]

An anonymous contributor has changed the text to read The term attempts to hint at an alleged "political incorrectness" of the word "history", whereas before it was claimed to be a pun. His reference is a Reuters article which mentions the term in passing.

I don't think that this is a convincing reference at all, but neither am I sure that the term was based on a pun rather than a misunderstanding of the etymology of history. Has anyone really found an authoritative explanation for the origins of "herstory"? Was it coined in ignorance of etymology, or in a bit of knowing playfulness? Phiwum (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Reuters article refers to a list of politically correct terms that was discussed [#Global_Language_Monitor_as_source above]. Phiwum (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct year for "Who Stole Feminism"?[edit]

I noticed that the Christina Hoff Sommers article shows a publication date of 1995 for this book, while this article shows 1994. The Amazon page allows one to read the copyright page of the book, and it says copyright 1994, first Touchstone edition 1995 (which leaves the possibility that an edition was published by another publisher).

So, does this count as a 1994 book or a 1995 book? Phiwum (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 06 September 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: oppose (speedy close) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herstory → Hertory – "History", minus "his", plus "her" is "hertory", not "herstory". – Article editor (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:UCN; no evidence provided that "hertory" is the preferred form over "herstory"; Further, by English rules, if "history" = his+story, where the double-consonant has been consolidated as a single "s", then "history"-his+her="herstory" because his+story=history. And the contention seems to be it is a story by men, so hisstory, therefore the feminine would be herstory; not the female supporters of the monarchy "hertory" (tory being the supporters of the British monarch) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oxford says "herstory." Isn't it a pun? I.e. "her story." La crème de la crème (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nonsense. —innotata 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Suggest speedy close, as this unsourced suggestion is clearly going nowhere. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on obscurity of "hertory": Although "hertory" does appear in the article, I have been unable to verify whether the term is reliably sourced. All but one of the sources cited in the article are either dead links or offline sources. As further evidence of the obscurity of the term, I notice that nothing on Wikipedia (in article space) links to the "Hertory" redirect (despite the redirect having existed for nearly a decade). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Herstory is the WP:COMMONNAME. gobonobo + c 00:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Herstory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately oed & ubc.ca links won't go (and I removed them anyway as useless, with misleading article text which I cannot verify form the source). languagemonitor.org OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link?[edit]

I think that the link in the first paragraph of "Usage" links to the wrong article. The reference to W.I.T.C.H. links to the Italian comic. There is a different article, that I assume was intended, to the Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.44.18 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herstory&oldid=1212614590"