Talk:The Left Hand of Darkness

Edit warring over Anarcha-feminism category

I invite editors who appear to be edit-warring over the inclusion of Category:Anarcha-feminism to discuss here please :-)

@Doomhope, @Vanamonde93, @GwydionM Funcrunch (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hardly edit-warring! I'm not opposed in principle to the category, but we have no content in the article supporting it. I've read a lot of analysis of Le Guin's writing. Anarchism is a prominent theme, but it's not really analyzed relative to this book as far as I am aware. If anyone who wishes to add this category is willing to produce a good source, I'm willing to try to work it into the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

True that it's not yet an edit war, I just feared that it was heading in that direction. I agree that there should be reliable sources to justify including the category.

(Aside: Le Guin, who I was fortunate to meet in person, is my favorite author, and I took my last name, Gethen, from this book.) Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Good pick! If a gloomy one: Gethen = Winter.

UKL is one of my faves, too. I'm pretty sure I have a copy of the original mmpb ed. Sadly in storage now, with most of my library. Reread not too long ago. One of her masterworks. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not interested in edit wars either - I think Vanamonde93's assessment is fair and if I find a source I'll come back to chat about it :) Doomhope (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Elsewhere, I wasted some time giving a source from someone who would not otherwise permit it to be said that Kier Starmer was the UK Prime Minister. But if it is going to become a habit to root out well-known facts without someone wasting time, I am not going to be one of the time-wasters. If you insist on removing definite truths, I have better things to do with my time.GwydionM (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above, GwydionM is now repeatedly inserting very minor mentions of TV, including a character reading the book in a single scene in a single episode. This is basically trivia by Wikipedia's standards, and it is not sufficient for a mention here: to be clear, this article is about the book, as per the article's title. Whether it's worth mentioning in the article on the TV series is a separate issue (I doubt it, but it doesn't concern us here). A secondary topic is how the book has been adapted to TV, film, theatre, etc., and a plan for a future film is (pace WP:CRYSTAL) just about worth mentioning. A TV episode that on some whim of the director has a character holding a book for a moment is definitely below the threshold (a minor aside to a branch of a side issue to the main topic: no). All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a single Mashable source as sufficient to warrant the inclusion of that factoid. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

As excited as I was to see one of my favorite books in a scene on one of my favorite (current) TV series, I have to agree that this was too minor to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Funcrunch (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)