Talk:Gulliver's Travels

like between an egg opening habit?

no, like vocals/vowels like 'e' are written, straightlined or so, also, softly language softening signals, well, that´s the major difference discussed violently ( heck, don´t ask ) currently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:F05:0:5019:B82A:5804:6DE9 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AshMillette.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zee-Elizabeth-Bee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

And not a mention of the accurate description of the moons of Mars provided in the book? How odd. Has anyone writing this page actually read the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.150.128 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

See the more specific article on Laputa. Goustien (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

utvee (utvy?) chayetye ? president.gov.ua/lustration/about from which side to open eggs? in whose command/auftragskommando? leute wir koennen zusammen singen, wir koennen versuchen, die diskussion auf die schlagzeilen der yellow press zu beschraenken, ich bin jenseits meiner optionen: was fuer ideen habt ihr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:FA81:0:55FC:A6DA:D408:2C93 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The section on "misogyny" fails any reasonable test for neutrality.

The content in question is a politically biased, neo-feminist dissertation containing lengthy analyses and quotations by Nussbaum and Needleman Armintor, including this gem:

"male nausea can be used as a pathetic countermeasure against the perceived threat of female consumption."

The entire section in question is a political opinion. Moreover, as a political opinion, it is quite .

Whether or not you personally happen to agree with that particular political perspective is irrelevant. It's a deeply biased political perspective, intentionally expressed in terms that many will find offensive: and as such, it doesn't belong in the current article.

The section should be deleted, or at least moved to a separate article where such polarizing views would be more relevant.

Since that's probably too much to ask, I'm simply making an edit to the section in question.

Before you reflexively restore the text that I'm about to delete, ask yourself:

Is this really a "neutral" point of view? Really? Gonnasoakupthesun (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have just restored "the text that I'm about to delete". Whatever the merits of your arguments, your "Since that's probably too much to ask, I'm simply making an edit to the section in question." can hardly be considered a consensus-seeking attitude. Please do not engage in an edit war on this issue and focus on getting consensus on how to move forward on this. The existing version can obviously be improved, but introducing NPOV terms such as "modern feminist scholars", "coarse critique", "gender-focused" and "admit" are clearly not an improvement. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply