Talk:History of feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Feminism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for History of feminism:
  • Redo the beginnings of the feminist movement. The movement found its origins during the Enlightenment across Europe, not the early part of the 19th century--by that time the Enlightenment had passed.
  • Organize each chronoloical section to have common theory or trends in every nation/region, and then specific information for each under the appropriate heading.
  • Create an easytimeline from the data at fmla.homeip.net, see Graphical Timelines for examples and ideas. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:04, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • Discuss further first-wave feminist strands and ideas (such as liberal feminism, French feminism with de Beauvoir, etc)
  • Discuss circumstances arising to popularity of Radical feminism, and its effects, + it's decline
  • Discuss changing reaction towards feminism, third-wave feminism, etc
  • Strengthen the treatment of 19c feminism (rather sketchy as it currently stands). Billbrock 07:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Carefully integrate with Feminism (replace 'origins' there with brief summary, and transfer most of it here), and probably other subarticles, such as feminist writers. Develop the biographies to indicate better where they fit in with this page, and link back Mgoodyear 13:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Compress information so it isn't so long (byte wise)--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The entire article, with thanks for a few exceptions, needs citations. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The early history section dealing in particular with slavery-era women and writings (say, Mary Wollstonecraft through Susan B. Anthony) must make some effort to acknowledge and address the fact that the concept of "women's rights" was primarily centered on and limited to the experiences of white, free, middle-to-upper-class women, not ALL women equally.Whesandra (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Archive

Archives


Archive 1

Split and Organization[edit]

Any ideas for how this should be split up into leaf articles? If we do it chronologically (as it is divided now), the only sections big enough for their own articles are 19th century and 20th century. We could also use the long 19th century, ending at ww1. Or thematically, if someone can come up with a good sugestion. TheMightyQuill 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First I think we need a concept. Having reviewed pretty well all the pages in the feminism project, I believe it needs one page to tie it all together, and this one is the obvious one. Therefore in 'leafing', that should mainly be the detail, not the content. I have concentrated on content to date, rather than worrying too much about structure for now. Some of the themes are obvious ones for leaves, although technically this can be a lot of work. Incidentally where did this idea come from that there was a concensus on hiding the footnotes? Finally I would prefer people who actually know something about feminism to be doing major edits as opposed to stylistic changes. --Mgoodyear 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I started the ball rolling to show good faith by taking out Islamic feminism, and merging it with its leaf. The Nav bar now reflects this. --Mgoodyear 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think Feminism should be the page that links everything together, not History of Feminism. Second, havin the ability to hide such an extensive list of footnotes seems like a great idea to me. Third, anyone can edit the article, as long as they are able back up their edits with references. I happen to think at least a mention of Islamic feminism is very important to have on this page, to keep a global pov. TheMightyQuill 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

Someone mentioned moving the bibliography, which I think is a good idea. I'd like to create Bibliography of the History of Feminism. MGoodyear, could you choose maybe 5 major (survey?) texts that should be listed here, and the rest we can link to, for those interested in further reading? Right now it seems like a lot of the article is made up of footnotes and bibliography, which adds to size without making it more readable to the general public. Comments? TheMightyQuill 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Make it so. Bibliography is really only interest to the serious researcher, not the average person; make it avaible, but not in the way, or else the average reader is going to did of boredom.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Old Introduction[edit]

On the recent changes to the introduction, I think we have 2:1 to revert. --Mgoodyear 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Most, is not all, of this article could be split up into everyother topic on the navi bar; seeing as you seem to have the in ablitiy to talk about the feminist movement. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nether rewrite the introduction yourself or leave it.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And techically, it's two to two, User:Taxman was who orginially stated that the introduction needed to be reworked.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In good faith, I've moved your comments related to the introduction down to this section, to keep the two discussions separate. I hope that's okay. I do like the old introduction better than the new one, but I think the old one could stand some improvement. Perhaps we can discuss it here before getting into a further revert war. Honeymane, I don't know what you mean: Wikipedia is a democracy says it is to be consensus based but you re-wrote an introduction that you fully knew at least two of us liked. What, specifically, are your problems with the old introduction? It's too academic or what? -- TheMightyQuill 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not a democracy, in a democracy, majority rules, no matter what; In wikipedia, if a consensus is not reached (typically, that means that there has to be an landslide in votes) it is undecided. And like I said, it is not a consensus (the link should be working in the last comment I made in this section now), it is 2:2 Taxman also stated that the introduction needed to be reworked. I'm merely attempting to be pro-active, to be Bold

Making changes that you know people with disagree with, while it is still being discussed in the talk page, is not what WP:BOLD is about. It's certainly not consensus. I would REALLY appreciate it if you would stop making such changes until we're done discussing it, especially ones that do nothing but push your POV, like the ones you made yesterday. You've so completely written it to back up your argument that I'd really like to remove it entirely right now, because it's aggravating our conflict. Instead, I've just added appropriate tags until our issues have been resolved. --TheMightyQuill 16:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The old introduction; fails to introduce the topic, it introduces feminism. Then it talks about the term feminism. then a a quote about women's history, which isn't really related to the article, and THEN it introduces the History of Feminism....Sort of, it says that it's tradationally about the movements, and then it criticises that, in the same sentience. Then, something about people finding it ahistoric. And then the other POV. And then how both are incorrect because they risk loosing continuity (Continuity with what? the rest of history?). And then it talks about Virginia Woolf, and the recovery. (of what, it doesn't say) and then an opinion quotation from her.
The first and second parts belongs in Feminism, and criticism should remain in the section called criticism, more explaning and then moving the 'lastest' feminist literary indeas and such to Women's history. Take Virginia Woolf's quotation; "[...] nothing is known about women before the eighteenth century." I concure, this is most likely true, but the reconning of history so that women have their rightful places is something that should be dealt with in Women's history. Just because this reconing is done by feminists, and some people may label these earlier women as feminists does not make them feminists. Most of this material is almost perfect for the article on women's history.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 08:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually fairly normal to introduce the topic of your history, before you introduce the history itself. That way people have some idea what your talking about, without having to click the link, read the whole article on feminism, then come back. Look how History of Canada starts:

Canada is a country of 32 million inhabitants that occupies the northern portion of the North American continent, and is the world's second largest country in area. Inhabited for millennia by First Nations (aboriginal), Canada has evolved from a group of European colonies into an officially bilingual (English and French), multicultural federation, having peacefully obtained sovereignty from its last colonial possessor, Great Britain.

Continuity with the long history of conflict that lead to the organized movement. Do you really want me to explain this again?

Stating one pov, and then stating criticism is a way to avoid POV. Simply removing the criticism (as you have done) is a great way to make an article POV. Limiting criticism to the section called criticism would allow you to write the rest of the article in the way you want. Maybe we should return the article to the way it was, and put your arguments in a criticism section. Would that be more NPOV for you?

I agree, the quote doesn't really fit. Leave it out. However, as I have said repeatedly, the pre-19th century information is not a general history of women, but a history of women's conflict with men for power (feminism), thus, the History of Feminism. Women have done other things besides battle against patriarchy. TheMightyQuill 16:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How about, we write the article to reflect the history of the feminism (from a completely historical view point, rather then the ahistoric), starting from when the term entered english (and perhaps a bit before) and then, put a section called 'criticism' and put your and mgoodyear's arguments in that section. Unless you can prove that the majority of non-feminist historians believe that feminism has "existed for as long as there have been women,"--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't a suitable solution. See my sarcastic response, two paragraphs up. Though, it would actually be much easier to include your criticisms (that content before xxx date is ahistorical) in one short section. - TheMightyQuill 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Feminism is not the conflict between Women and men, it is "a collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies largely motivated by or concerned with the liberation of women."
How can I put this; the History of Feminism is the history of (something) rather then the topic of history. For example, the history of geology is not the same as Geological history. The difference is the first is about how the topic developed, the second is history as told by the topic. The first is performed by historians, and the second is performed by geologists. Do you see the difference now? Perhaps I have been a bit hasty with the whole rewriting of the introduction and saying that feminism is merely the history of the movement. As you said, women have been inconflict with men for a long while, and history doesn't show this. But, because this is the reinterpretation of history, it belongs in Feminist history, not this history of feminism, just as Rock layers do not belong in an article on the history of geology. Perhaps in the future, feminist history will be commonly accepted history by all historians and the History of feminism maybe redone to reflect such a reinterpretation of history, but as it stands now, it is not.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is a difference between History of Feminism and Feminist history, but the first includes historical content, whereas the second is a description of the field, so the title forms are reversed from the geology example. As I mentioned already, it is the same as World History (field) and History of the World (historical content). All written history is the reinterpretation of history. No history book captures "strictly the facts" of history "as it really was." All history is written from the present, using present vocabulary. If you went back in time and asked small european kingdoms if they were at xenophobic, they would have no idea what you were talking about. Does that mean they weren't? They may not have taken it to the extreme of modern scientific racism, but new words can be used to describe the past. It isn't necessarily ahistorical. History focused on class has long examined the history of social/economic classes that may not have considered themselves classes. I would never argue that someone in the 16th century would themselves claim to be "feminist," but if they espouse the basic principles of feminism, they are feminists. Since these women, in their part, espoused moral philosophies that concerned the liberation of women, they were feminists. That makes these women historical content, and means they belong in this article. -- TheMightyQuill 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Techinically, Xeno and phobic are two, very old words. The thing is TMQ, the use of modern words to describe something (like xenophobic, or what have you) is different then the use of a label given to a modern ideal or concept. Which is what I'm getting at. You can not use the term Boy scouts for organiations before Scouting, you can't use the term Lutherian before the essay that Martin Luther wrote.
I realize that the article Feminist History is not about history in and of it's self, but rather the term, my point however, stands. Feminist History may be a field of reseach and the History of Feminism does have the historical content, however, Seeing as most, if not all, of this informstion is based on the reinterpretations of feminists. Wikipedia perfers to deal with the majority pov in cases like this, so unless you can prove that A) the majority of historians are feminists or B)the majority of historians use the term feminist to describe these women, you can not include this information. For example, in order for Wikipedia to write the article on Holocaust from the view point of a Holocaust denier, the majority of the world/historians have to agree.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Latin origins of the term xenophobic, but that doesn't change my point. One can't use the word "Boy Scouts" to pre-scouting organizations, or Lutheran to describe pre-Luter organizations, but Feminism isn't an organization. You are, again, conflating Feminism and the Feminist Movement. I'm not, and would never, suggest that pre-16th century women were part of the Feminist Movement, but that doesn't mean they weren't feminist, or raise feminist arguments.

As for majority POV, you have yet to give any evidence that your POV is the majority POV. You haven't given a single reference, or given any impression that you've ever read a book on the subject. On the other hand, MGoodyears additions have numerous references by academics, that you seem to dismiss as feminists, without having read their books or articles. So really, the onus is on you to prove your argument, not me.

Also, comparing my argument to that of a holocaust denier, in any way, is a pretty lame debate tactic. - TheMightyQuill 09:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you say that Lutheran ideals did not exist before he wrote his essay? That the bible is divine? I'm pretty sure there has been dozens of people before Luther that had the same thoughts, that does not make them Lutheran. You see TMQ, inorder to be lutheran, one must declare it. If one does not, one is not a lutheran. To put this in simple terms, it is you, not I, that is confusing the Feminist movement with feminism. The current ideals where/are the end result of the movement, Althought I'm sure that feminism has had it's influences, as does any movement of people. The ideals and goals have been changed because of the movement, not what someone said 400 years ago.
As for citations/evidence; have you given any? 207 citations is not overwhelming evidence, I'm sure if looked I could find 207 citations by academics saying that the holocaust did not happen does not make that theory true. 207 is about 0.003207498(%) percent of the world's population. Now, you request that I show you that my viewpoint is the majority, however, I have been unable as of yet to find such a source that says that feminism never happened.
Perhaps it is possible to reach an agreement. I propose that the undue weight(which I still believe it is) towards the 'feminists' before 1792 be removed to another article, title it what you will. And the article truelly begins with the publication of the Vindaction of the rights of women. And keep the rest. And rewrite the openning paragraphs.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are selectively ignoring my arguments, dismissing my requests for any kind of evidence to back up your claims, dismissing the evidence that has given, comparing my argument to holocaust denial, and suggesting an "agreement" in which I make a compromise and you get what you've been asking for all along. 207 citations may not be overwhelming evidence, but 207:0 is a pretty overwhelming ratio of support. If the earlier information has undue weight, it's because your hostility managed to scare off the only person who has put any effort into expanding on the article before she was finished describing more recent events. Congratulations. I hope you feel successful. Perhaps if MGoodyear had started with the present and worked backwards, you could have contained your outrage and we would have avoided this whole mess.

Again, I suggest we leave the article's chronological divisions basically as is, but create leaf articles, and leave only small summaries of each era on this page. - TheMightyQuill 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If she does not want people to edit what she puts on Wikipedia, then she should not add to Wikipedia.
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."
Thus, I feel no remorse for my actions in this matter. Honestly, I do not believe an agreement must be reached, I'm sure, in time, the article will be edited and it's problem's fixed. c'est la Wikipedia.
Personally, I find leafing articles the most annoying of all wikipedian articles. Take the Colonization of Africa; almost nothing there in content, it's a useless article. So, heres what I propose on your proposal; we leaf the article and delete this one. Then, we move the History of feminism in the {{Feminism}} navi bar to it's own heading, rather then being an article it's self. The articles will include the dates. I still believe that anything before the Vindaction of the rights of Women should and could be contanted within one article, possibly The History of Pre-modern feminism.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Honeymane's Introduction[edit]

Here's what you took out:

Feminism, perhaps more correctly "feminisms", as a social construct, can be thought of as having existed for as long as there have been women, and women who have recognised that patriarchy and patrilineage were problematic. (ref) Spender, Dale. There's always been a woman's movement. Pandora Press, London 1983(/ref)
The word "feminism", did not come into common usage until the late nineteenth century, although over time it has been called a number of other things, including womanism. (ref name="walters")Walters, Margaret. "Feminism: A very short introduction". Oxford University 2005 (ISBN 0-19-280510-X)(/ref)
Both of these approaches risk losing continuity. The new feminist literary history of the last few decades, although presaged by Virginia Woolf, has largely been a process of retrieval and recovery.
(ref)Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Feminist Consciousness From the Middle Ages to Eighteen-seventy , Oxford University Press, 1993(/ref)

"What I find deplorable...is that nothing is known about women before the eighteenth century."
(Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own. 1928.)(ref name="woolf"/)

You removed four referenced statements, and for no apparent reason, one extra reference.

First, you removed what is probably the most basic npov definition of feminism - that it's essentially an idea or social construct opposition to patriarchy.

Next, you removed the dating of the term itself, the very subject of the article (yet oddly, left in "Some find the use of a term prior to its coinage 'ahistoric', now without a date, so it makes little sense).

Then you removed the only page link to Womanism, a earlier historical term for feminism.

Then, in what might be the only reasonable change, you removed two points that support MGoodyears position. Fine, you disagree, we should discuss those points. I'll let MGoodyear try to defend why they should be in the main article, rather than just here on the talk page.

Here's what you added:

History of Feminism is the history of the Feminist movement, as well as it's orgins. Feminism is often catergorized into 'waves', the first wave being the feminism movement in to 19th to early 20th centuries, which dealt mainly with the the Suffrage movement. The second wave (1960s-1980s) dealt with the inequality of laws, and the general social structure. The Third wave of Feminism (1990s-current) arose from the perceived failures of the Second-wave.
The study of the history of Feminism history has been criticised by some Feminist authors for ignoring women's voices over thousands of years.

First, you defined the topic in a way that fit your argument, but makes little sense. By the most basic reasoning, the History of the Feminism is the history of Feminism. The history of X is the history of X, not the history of Y. Especially when the history of Y is already written, separately, on its own page. And everything is the history of it's origins. That's what history means. So right away, your first sentence is illogical and redundant.

Next, you use weasel words ("is often categorized") and no reference to summarize late 19th and 20th century feminism. You introduce terminology right away, which is confusing. Then you define them badly. First-wave dealt mainly with Women's Suffrage (Suffrage is something much bigger). What does "the general social structure" mean? Are we supposed to guess? It also gives the impression that feminism ceased to exist after most women (in the western world) got the right to vote in the 1920s/30s, until the 2nd wave arose out of nowhere in the 1960s.

Then you added that last sentence, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Not only did you completely miss the point of the sentence, but you edited it so poorly as to leave in a phrase like "the history of Feminism history." ??!

Do you understand, now, why someone might be skeptical of your contribution to this article, or your grasp of its topic? - TheMightyQuill 07:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The second wave (1960s-1980s) dealt with the inequality of laws, as well as unoffical inqualities.

This is no better. What is the usefulness of linking De facto from the introduction? In case people don't understand the word unofficial? Actually, they might not understand the world official, because it's so awkward, abnormal, and unclear. Unofficial inequalities? Even I'm confused by that.

I would assume that they are able to read, you know, with their eyes, the words in the article and get an understanding of what the term means. It's not that difficult. People and organizations whom act on de facto ideals that are racist are doing so on de facto ideals, ones that are not mandated by the government or else.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Navigation bars and other Wiki emblems[edit]

I am putting back back the Project logo for now, simply because if all this discussion on consistency is to mean something, then there should be consistency in consistency, untill we can dig up a policy document. It is on other feminism pages! As a more generic point, I would rather be guided by organisational style than by someone pointing to another page which is likely to merely compound error.--Mgoodyear 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have corrented this error. In fact, it is not on orther Feminism pages, as it is clearly shown if you click on the catergory on the bottom; only two topics are located (or where) there, and they are not part of the Feminist series.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

what is the conflict here about?[edit]

I saw the notice for a third party. Can I help?--Filll 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Article length and overall inclusion of anything remotely feminist, so far as I can tell. The article is too long; the notice is Note: This page is 134 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. when one edits the page as a whole. I strongly suggest the discussion here move in the direction of what (or who) has been notably important to the feminist movement in history and try to prioritize what should be included and what is of less significance and can be trimmed or removed. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just sounds like a need to organize and split the material into more appropriate bite-sized articles. Does someone oppose this? Or are they unable to decide on how to split the material?--Filll 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For something like a history, this could easily be organized temporally, like the history of the Civil rights movement articles here on Wikipedia. They are split up by date. Or it could be split by physical location, or culture. Or it could be split up among different issues, like reproductive rights, and suffrage, etc.--Filll 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested that the article could be halfed if an article like the roots of feminism was created, and everything that is not part of the feminist movement (root causes) could be moved there; most of those suggested split already exist (see navi bar)--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 23:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow it already looks like there are first wave, second wave and third wave feminist articles. Could some of this be farmed out to them? This is so big.--Filll 23:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It could.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who or what is stopping it?--Filll 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything is stopping it, but that's not really the conflict, the conflict is over the content of this article, and whether or not it should just focus on the Feminism movement or (as KillerChihuahua say) everything remotely feminist.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well since you are running out of space, and need to trim down, one has to summarize things and farm them out. I would suggest a separate article on history of feminist movement with dates before 1800, from 1800 to 1950, say and from 1950 to present (or some other dates that seem more reasonable). and then one on history of feminism, which would have only a small amount about the feminist movement itself, and mainly concentrate on other issues. --Filll 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your post (and I may very well be misunderstanding you completely!), I disagree strongly. The "History of" article should have a great deal about the movement, not "other issues" which leads to my already stated complaint of content which is "everything remotely feminist" - a history article should present a high level view, with a clear flow and only very notable incidents and people. I suggest we trim the bits which have their own articles to be more concise, then work on removing all the secondary stuff - people who yes, did some feminist stuff, or minor steps, but are not pivotal to the History of feminism. Otherwise, we'll have no substance, no history, and a bunch of cruft and trivia. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, While I understand what Filll is saying, I don't think more articles is the answer; there is lots of articles on the various parts of feminism, but most seem to little or no work done on them. Certienly, they could be expaned with this extra information, but that's not really to topic at hand.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I begin, keep in mind that, only one month ago this article did not properly footnote its sources, and was generally very weak. MGoodyear has put an enormous amount of effort into expanding it, carefully footnoting everything, and introducing quality material where there was none. At the same time, this has caused it to swell to its current enormous size. As far as I know, no one is opposed to splitting it into a series of articles on the History of feminism. I already started a discussion above on that topic.

There major point of contention seems to be over the legitimate starting point for the article. MGoodyear believes (and through references, has more or less convinced me) that since feminism is about women's efforts to wrest power from men, and since that conflict likely existed long before the word "feminism" was actually coined, that it should be included in this article. Honeymane is determined that the article should only include the history of the organized "Feminist Movement" not of what MGoodyear would call feminism generally. Honeymane also seems to have a more precise date in mind as to when the history of the movement should begin, and believes some of the earlier information should be excluded from this article. Both editors seem unwilling to discuss their points before editting and reverting eachothers' work. Also, it seems this conflict seems to have spread from a prior conflict at Brassiere. I don't know if one user followed the other to this page to continue the argument, or whether it's just a coincidence, but I guess I should assume good faith. Please either of you, correct me if I have misinterpreted this as the main argument.

My side: Because Honeymane has not, to my knowledge, given any knowledge, given any particular evidence why this article should be limited to the feminist movement, or why the movement should be said to begin at such and such a date, and not before, I tend to side with Mgoodyear on this main point of contention. MGoodyear has provided an enormous amount of academic sources which back up her claims. Honeymane seems to think these sources are biased because they are written by feminists, but I'm not sure who else would be writing on the history of feminism. -- TheMightyQuill 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are two separate articles on Feminism and the Feminist Movement. The latter includes a history section on the movement. The fact that there are two articles suggests that there is a separation between feminism and the feminist movement, so I'm not sure why a history of feminism could/should only include a history of the movement. - TheMightyQuill 02:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how wide the literature base is in feminist/feminism history but I can imagine there might be more woman's studies people than many others. However, I am sure there are other sources if one looks. Also, how does one know if an author is a feminist, or just a scholar interested in feminism? If there appears to be bias, then try to get sources from the other side. I guess if there was an official "feminist movement" that had a special start date, then I would favor giving it its own article. After all, where would I look for information about the feminist movement except at an article on the feminist movement? Feminism sounds like a far more general topic to me. What do the dictionaries say? One probably cannot trust them too much since it is a fairly new term I bet.--Filll 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is too much information about the history of the feminist movement in here that there is not room for it in the Feminist movement article, then it could be extracted into a History of the feminist movement article. I don't know. Sounds like you have an immense amount of material to me.--Filll 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion for the Feminist movement article, what are we going to do abotu this one? Honeymane, do you agree that TheMightyQuill's assessment of your position is generally accurate? If not, what (concisely please!) is your position? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would like to see this article focus on the History of Feminism, from a more a more worldwide view, focusing what are notible movements in history, of Feminism; I do not believe that Such and Such a person in the 16th century who wrote an essay or such critisizing the Government or power stucture at the time is all that importent to history, in and of it's self. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You know... Martin Luther wrote an essay criticizing a power structure in the 16th century, and it turned out to be pretty important, in and of itself. - TheMightyQuill 03:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok let me ask. Honeymane wants an article on the History of all the Feminist movements world wide, and just want to summarize them without going into details, sort of an overview article? And what do others want? To go into details of feminism worldwide, but not just feminist movements?--Filll 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between an essay that creates a varation on a major religion and the writings of someone that was not all that importent; Unless you can prove that the Feminist movement was founded based on this writing, rather then various issues. It wasn't until the Second and third waves that Feminism really started to explore the past for articles and people that supported their views/etc.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in answer to Filll's question, I want an article on the history of feminism, worldwide, not just feminist movements. TheMightyQuill 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that no one wrote the history of feminism until recently, when women started becoming academic historians. No one wrote about the history of women at all, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. It wasn't until very recently that historians began to look at the History of Science, but if you look, they don't begin the history with the modern incarnation of science. Same with the history of Racism. Even for a more standard historical example, the History of Canada begins long before it ever became a country, or went by that name. Things don't just appear out of nowhere - that's the whole point of history. Again, I'm willing to concede that some of this early stuff is pre-history of the feminist movement', but as stated above (and, I believe, in MGoodyears introduction) there is a difference between feminism and the feminist movement, and therefor, between their histories.
Finally, just because you are not interested in the older history of feminism, doesn't prove it didn't exist, or doesn't matter, or that no one else cares. I think there are enough references included (and enough wikipedia editors involved) to show that there IS interest, and that it is therefor notable. As far as I can see, you still have yet to contribute any content at all to this article, nevermind add a single reference, yet you insist that the mass of information that has been added should be removed. Exactly what purpose are you working at here? -- TheMightyQuill 04:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Your examples of the histories of Science, Racism, and Canada are all things that have historical information, and none of them are polical movements. Canada's history starts from a point before it was a country because the History of Canada has to do more with the history of a perticular geographic landmass, something that has existed before, and will exist after, humans have left their mark.
Feminism, on the other hand, has arisen in a very short period of time; There is very few movements, before what we call the Feminist movement. Modern Feminists seem to be retroactivily going through history and seeking out women whom have, in the past, expressed views simular to modern Feminist theory, and labeling them feminists. It would be the same as, for example, a scientist labeling Aristotle, who was a Philosopher, a scientist, because he expressed simular ideas. One can not deny that He wasn't importent to Science, but he is not a scientist. On this train of thought, most Feminists before the movement can not be labeled feminists, even if some modern Feminists believe that they should be. Spliting the Article into History of Feminism and the Influences of Feminism/feminist theory would be a more correct way of writing the article.
Just because I have not added to the article (I may remind you that I did rewrite the introduction, which was lacking) does not mean I am not contributing; sometimes ya got to cut it down.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what difference it makes if Racism is a political movement. The point is, things CAN and ARE retroactively labeled, when the term had not been coined at the time. Women that in some way fought to wrest power from men into the hands of women can be defined as espousing some kind of feminism, and are part of its history. They aren't modern feminists. They are certainly not members of the feminist movement. You are limiting your definition of a feminist to someone who is a member of the feminist movement, and then argue that someone who is not a member of the feminist movement cannot be a feminist, therefore, no only members of the feminist movement are feminists. That's circular logic. Just because Aristotle is not a scientist, doesn't mean he shouldn't be included in the History of Science. Same with ancient India, and various other groups, upon which modern science was built. The same with feminism. Just as science didn't magically appear in the 19th century, neither did feminism. You say that "the histories of Science, Racism, and Canada are all things that have historical information" - do you mean to suggest that the history of feminism does not "have historical information" ? I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I'd like you to explain.
Again, you say feminism has "arisen in a very short period of time" as though that somehow proves itself. This is the subject of the debate. I don't think it has arisen in a very short period of time. That's what this article is trying to say... it has arisen very slowly over hundreds of years. And the article has references. You don't.
As for your sole contribution of a unilateral re-written introduction, I'm going to examine it above. TheMightyQuill 06:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This is quickly becoming a pointless back and forth between me and TMQ; I did not ask for a third party just to have another heading to fight over this topic. I've said my piece, whether or not TMQ agrees; This article should address the topic from a 'higher up' perspective, even if that means the large removal of most of the current text.
The Introduction needs to be reworked, in order to introduce the topic, not criticize the topic from the first sentience it's in. (that's line 4, sentence 4 of mgoodyear's introduction.) An introduction should not include quotes, because all quotes are opinions and thus bias. (That is, besides being pointless)--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a pointless back and forth. It's a debate to reach consensus. If you have any actual evidence to back of anything you're saying, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to know what you meant by "actual historical information." I'd love for you to define "higher up perspective." In addition, it would be awesome if you could stop calling things you are not interested in "pointless." -- TheMightyQuill 07:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You are the the one tossing around the word 'actual', I'm not saying that so and so's essay back in the 1600s isn't history, what I am saying is that this article should look at history as if it was anyother topic of history; that is, dealing with major events. The writing of an essay is not a histoically notable event, unless somthing comes of in, like it did with Martin Luther. This is what I mean by a worldwide view, or 'higher up perspective'. That is my reasoning, from a historic stand point.
Imagine that you are at the top of a high mountian, looking down at a valley; you can get the lay of the land, but not the details. The same is true for Historical topics in an Encyclopedia; Adding obsene amounts of information or data is both pointless (because readers will get bored reading it) and it takes up too much room. This is an Encyclopedia, and should be as reader friendly as possible; it is in fact one of the Pillars of Wikipedia (Yes, it's techinically not stated, but I feel it's implied). This is my reasoning from a Wikipedian POV.
My useage of the term 'pointless' is because I believe that Quotes, in generial, are pointless to wikipedia. That's why Wikiquote exists. The pointless information is the information that is basically filler to this article.
but again, this 'debate' is lacking a point. I've stated my Viewpoint, and my reasoning, I do not see why I need secondary sources to back up my opinion (or even how). --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 08:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no point in questioning my reasonings, perhaps you should answer Filll's question, rather then attmepting to 'disprove (or whatever you've been trying to do) my viewpoint, opinion, what I want for this article, and reasonings.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I assure you, history is not simply a listing of "major events," at least, not in the way you describe it. Ideas (like feminism), writing, art, music, science, culture... all of these things change over time and affect the world. Perhaps they affect the world more subtly than a riot or an assassination, but sometimes with far greater impact. The history of feminism is not simply the history of Bra Burning and Suffragettes, it's also the history of the ideas behind those acts. Feminism is an idea (you can't touch it, and it didn't "happen") so it's history is also going to include the history of ideas.
Which of Filll's questions are you referring to? I already answered the one below. TheMightyQuill 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The one under your Martin Luther comparison.
History is a collection of facts, not ideas. Ideas lend to bias, which lead to distoried history.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong. If something as simple as History of ideas doesn't convince you, i'll try. How can you write a history of communism without looking at the influence of marx and other socialist thinkers. They didn't DO anything. Aristotle didn't DO anything, but his ideas are vitally important, because others took them and built on them. Most feminists didn't physically DO anything, either. Ideas influence society, even when people aren't consciously aware of it. Women didn't spontaneously decided they wanted to vote in the late 1800s; men and women were affected by different thinkers, as well as social and cultural changes over time. The continuity described in this very article demonstrates that beautifully, with references. Have you even read it?

I have not looked into this material too deeply, but I wonder if most of the details about the Feminist Movement History could be moved out to their own article? (which is certainly important enough that it could be justified I would think, as long as you have enough material, and it sure sounds like you do). That would hopefully shrink this article quite a bit. Then if one divided it up chronologically if it is still too long, that might be one way to divide it. Of course there might be better ways, and these might be more obvious to an expert in this area.--Filll 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid simply creating a History of the Feminist Movement article probably won't solve the length problem, as it would still have to include 80-90% of this page (18th century until today) and would still be way over length. I think dividing it up chronologically makes relatively good sense, unless someone can come up with a better thematic division. TheMightyQuill 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at

Do both. Trim this one enormously, removing completely the less significant details, and have sub-articles for each section, where all those details can reside. Does this sound workable? If we go this route, then the secondary question I see, which has not been addressed, is should it be split by timeline or geographical location? Feminism in Asia has had a different course from in Europe, for example. There are pros and cons for either method, I'm just tossing this out there for consideration. I see no reason why Honeymane and TMQ cannot both be happy with the results if we do the "both" route, but if I have missed some objection please let me know. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with moving some of the more detailed information to sub articles, but it should still be mentioned here and linked in-text here. The History of Feminism article should cover everything in survey, and the detailed information is in a sub articles, as part of the series, with its own navbar. Something like this:

and the Historical aspects of selected feminist issues section can stay in the main article, since it transcends time periods. Please respond to this idea in the Organization section above. TheMightyQuill 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My main objection has to do with in the details in the article, not so much the splitting of the article into a thousand miniarticles. We may find that, without this extra information, that this article fits within acceptible limitions on file size.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, why would you remove good, well-referenced, interesting information from wikipedia? That's crazy. Just because Honeymane doesn't find it interesting. I don't find Statistical mechanics particularly interesting, nor interesting to the great majority of the general public, but I'm sure it's worth including in wikipedia. Anyone really interested in Feminism and its history would be more than happy to read 20 extra paragraphs to summarize feminism from the dawn of time to the 18th century. That's hardly excess detail for 1700 years of history. It's hardly a book. It's only about 10k, not even a large wikipedia article. More and more, this seems like more an issue of a personal grudge than any rational criticism of the content. - TheMightyQuill 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly concur with TMQ here. See Charles Darwin for an example. Sub-articles include Charles Darwin's education, Second voyage of HMS Beagle, Inception of Darwin's theory, Development of Darwin's theory, Publication of Darwin's theory, Reaction to Darwin's theory, and various other sub-articles including articles on several of his publications and a complete article on Charles Darwin's views on religion. Wikipedia is not paper, there is room for all of this information. While I agree and support your desire to trim this article for a higher level view, shorter length, and better flow there is no reason to remove information completely. See Wikipedia:Summary style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillerChihuahua (talkcontribs) 14:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
Good grief, how embarrassing. I forgot to sign and before I could correct it, a bot did it. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we should remove all the information, although, it may be best to view the topic from a strictly historical very point, rather then the admittedly ahistorical view that is being persented. I don't know how many non-feminist historians do not agree with the modern feminist's use of the term feminist and feminism on women (and some men) through out history. This is what I feel the conflict is about; whether or not this article (or any article created from) should be following this ahistorical view point. Ahistorical means that is lacks historical context. And context is everything. Go back 300 years, grab a local man or woman off the street, say feminism, or feminist to them; it means nothing because the term has not been given context of which any word needs. With is why it should be removed, at least to another article.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. I do not understand what is wrong with dividing up the article in some reasonable rational ways, without deleting a lot of material. There are many ways to divide this material up I am sure. What is the source of the disagreement? I am confused about why this is a problem, aside from being fairly tedious. Just decide on a way to divide it, and then give it a try.--Filll 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) How about:

Roots of Feminism or Causes of feminism
History of Feminism
: |
: |_First wave feminism#history
: |
: |_Second wave feminism#history
: |
: |_Third wave feminism#history
Proto-feminist view points through out history

--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Archived[edit]

Wikipedia said the page was too long, I've archived it. (As an IP address, because my copy+paste doesn't work in firefox)--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Seven Demands of the Womens Movement[edit]

I was impressed by the article. I would like to see the Seven Demands of the Womens Movement included under the 'second wave'. AFAIK the following were agreed upon in the UK and the USA circa 1971:

We assert a women's right to define her own sexuality and demand.

1 Equal pay for equal work 2 Equal education and equal opportunities 3 Free contraception and abortion on demand 4 free 24-hour community-controlled childcare 5 Legal and financial independence for women 6 An end to all discrimination against Lesbians 7 Freedom for all women from intimidation by the threat or use of violence or sexual coercion, regardless of marital status; an end to all laws, assumptions and institutions that perpetuate male dominance and men's aggression towards women.

all the best

Rschaufeld

Source of information:

Grit and Diamonds, women in Scotland making history 1980-1990, edited by Shirley Henderson and Alison Mackay, Edinburgh, Stramullion Ltd and the Cauldron Collective ,1990 Rschaufeld 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut down, clean-up, move out[edit]

This article is too long. It's duplicating info from a number of sub-articles. Al the good info that can be merged into them should be. Also there is too much section duplication. The role-of men in feminism sections should be given their own article and a summary as per WP:SUMMARY should be placed here. For the moment I've userfied it here. Also the development of feminist theory is now in one section, which I've moved to the bottom of the page.

What can't be moved needs cleaning-up and cutting down I would personally favour either the shortening or removal of the pre-history of feminism (i.e the material before the Seventeenth Century) - I can't see where it is explicitly verified that this is directly Feminist. Also the history of Patriarchy doesn't belong in this article. The writing is fine but it needs to go somewhere else (perhaps Patriarchy?). The problem being that the "Early history" and "Middle ages" sections read like feminist history essays rather than The history of feminism. Unless somebody can verify these sections as the early history of feminism they constitute original research by synthesis.

I've boldly embarked on this rewrite but I am as always happy to discuss and if anybody has really strong feelings about my removals revert & discuss--Cailil talk 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

At the heart of the problem here is the length of the section on the History of the feminist movement. Most of it is covered in the articles about Suffrage and the rest of it should be moved into First wave feminism and Second wave feminism--Cailil talk 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk[edit]

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique[edit]

For some reason, this book is not mentioned in the article. Can someone please add it in? Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason it's not here is because it's already on the Feminism page. But a longer section on it and other significant books probably should go here--Cailil talk 12:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Much of the stuff in this article is already on the Feminism page -- so that's not a reason not to include it. Many minor and insignificant things are in this article, so something as important as The Feminine Mystique should definitely be in here. ... Anyway, I added it in, as best I could, for now. Softlavender (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tone and verbiage of article[edit]

In my personal perception this article is written in a very convoluted, wordy, stilted, florid, overly metaphorical, and overly academic tone and style -- rather than straightforward setting down of facts in a very easily understood way, as per the rest of Wikipedia. This convoluted and turgid style makes it most difficult to add in any additions to the article, as normal Wikipedia style does not easily fit with the language of the article as it now stands. Not to mention, the current language of the article makes it difficult for readers to follow and comprehend. Would appreciate some solution to this problem, if possible. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you can improve it, please do. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely -- it's a large task, though. I've fixed a wee bit where I've made additions and changes, but I haven't fixed the paragraphs which followed or the article as a whole. I don't think it's necessarily worth scrapping the entire article, but a very good and thorough copyedit by a devoted copyeditor would be excellent. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup it's full of jargon and overly ornate prose. If you can help improve it - go for it. Personally I think this page has an identity crisis. What should be here and what should be elsewhere needs to be sorted out. As well as adding the most important books within feminist thought a summary of local/regional histories of feminism might be useful here (such as Feminism in Japan). I outlined some ideas I had for this page in a post above - but due to enormous work pressure wasn't able to complete--Cailil talk 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"What should be here and what should be elsewhere needs to be sorted out." Frankly, there's no reason to avoid overlap, in fact there's every reason to have overlap between articles, because whoever comes to read any single article should get the FULL story of that particular subject, which means that salient events germaine to two or more articles always need to be repeated. Softlavender (talk)
I agree that readers need the full story - the issue is WP has a method for dealing with necessary overlap - WP:SUMMARY. The problem here is that not only is the page dealing with the history of the feminist social movement, it was also trying to deal with the history of feminist theory and the history of the women's movement in certain countries. That isn't neccessarily a bad thing - it just needs organizing and tidying-up. The Philosophy article is a good example of what summary style structure looks like. Feminism isn't a bad example of it either--Cailil talk 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed a confusing passage of little importance[edit]

I removed the following passage (which I have, evenso, considerably cleaned up) from the terminology paragraph under the "Post-war and second wave" heading:

(This terminology is not completely uniform among all authors. T.Z. Lavine maintains that the "First wave" in the United States was the Women's Rights Movement from the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention to the onset of the American Civil War in 1861; the "Second wave," or Woman Suffrage Movement, from the founding of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1890 to 1924 after the amendment to grant the vote was ratified; the "Third wave," the "Women's Movement," from 1964.[1])

I removed it because it only confuses an already very garbled article, and because the source seems obscure, and because the info, if it belongs in Wikipedia at all, belongs in a section or article that focuses on the U.S. All in all, I personally think Wikipedia can probably live without it. Softlavender (talk)

Local histories[edit]

How would anyone feel about moving this part of the feminism article here. That article is getting too long and that whole section might be better placed here and it could be made into a summary on Feminism. Of course the section needs expansion and a lead paragraph but in principle I think it should be here until it gets long enough for its own article. Any thoughts?--Cailil talk 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll perform the merge on April 7th--Cailil talk 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge performed. Also some re-ordering of the section and renaming of sub-sections was done--Cailil talk 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Nicely executed, Cailil. Thanks for your good work. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Feminism[edit]

The article mentions Hannah Horstie as author of 'A Vindication of the Rights of Women.' Clicking on the title's link directs the reader to an entry for the book, which correctly lists the author as Mary Wollstonecraft. Possible vandalism? Carolinacosmina (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. Vandalism reverted--Cailil talk

References need improving?[edit]

This article has been tagged since 2007 as needing improved references - is the tag still necessary? The article seems very well referenced to me, and I'm guessing that the tag is just way out of date and no longer accurate, but I didn't want to take it down without checking here for consensus. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are plenty of references at this point. The few things that don't have references, have Fact tags. ~Dreamingkat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.83.152 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Feminist Movement to own page?[edit]

I think to reduce the page size to something reasonable, we need a seperate page for the History of the Feminist Movement. This way, we can cover other feminist/protofeminist/related movement and theories w/o the page being crazy long and confusing. ~dreamingkat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.88.221 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The other way to do it would be to remove protofeminism from this page. The history of feminism and the history of feminist movements are almost the same thing. Another way to consider the page would be to reorganize it around three parts: a) the origins of the feminist movements; b) the movements and their evolution; and c) the devlopment of feminist theories in the 1960s-1970s to present. Of course there is a further method that could be used: the staright-forward historical method: break the article into smaller ones based on the century (ie Feminism in the Eighteenth Century, Feminism in the Nineteenth Century, and Feminism in the Twentieth Century)--Cailil talk 10:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I had suggested creating a page for the History of the Feminist Movement because the text books I've borrowed from friends (in History and Women's Studies) have had the History of Feminism and the History of the Feminist Movement as seperate chapters or sections. While this is not a large sample set, I did review the above flame war very carefully and the number of references available for each viewpoint on what the scope of the article should be does seem to support the idea that the history of feminsm (as seen by the third wave?) is not defined by the history of the modern european/american Feminist Movement and it's decendents.
Also, do you think we still need the "more sources needed" template as asked above by another? You've worked on this article a long time. ~DreamingKat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.83.235 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
To explain further, I thought that the earlier discussion of spitting the page was done before the creation of the articles on each wave, which may have been mistaken. But I have been thinking about it, and I can see how if we split the page by century, and then section each new page by region, we could maintain narative by including links. For example, the 19th Century page would have a section for India, and in it would have links to the 18th Century page's India section, and the 20th Century page's section for India. Then someone interested in a regional narative could easily read through it, and the pages would be reasonable in length. ~Dreamingkat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.241.85 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, the page by timeslice and section by geography should scale well. Should a particular geographic region have excessive amounts of activity, you could leaf it into it's own page, say, History of Feminism in Iran in the 13th Century (although at that point, the "History of" part would be just to show the orgins of the page and could be left off). I'm liking the divide by century (or other relevant time slice for older periods) ~Dreamingkat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.241.85 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree there is something uncomfortable about the 'waves' theory as it is currently placed on the page and I think that organizing the information by era might be more easy to follow. Please have a read of WP:SUMMARY for advice to what needs to be done--Cailil talk 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
About the tag, I'm of the opinion that if there is a substantial amount of {{cn}} or {{fact}} tags in an article it should be left at the top of the page. So until we reorganize/rewrite the page I'd actually leave the tag there Scratch that. No, it's time for the tag to go. The preponderance of tags are in certain sections that could (if necessary) be individually tagged. I'm removing the page tag now--Cailil talk 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing sections[edit]

Hi. Unless someone objects by tomorrow night, I plan to summarize protofeminism and remove it because it is duplicate information contained in the Protofeminism article. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots more to take out but this part is done. 116k now vs. 139k before. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is the worst case of no citations. It cannot become a GA or FA in this state. I used to think it was a great article. For one thing, every sentence (statement) needs a citation. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is plagiarized in a book[edit]

It looks like this article (and others) are plagiarized in the 2008 book Feminism : A Paradigm Shift by Neeru Tandon. I would suggest that we make sure that book is never cited as a source on Wikipedia, otherwise we'll have circular verification. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

American anarchist feminists 1800 to 1900[edit]

I have removed a new section that didn't seem very global to me, nor did it seem relevant enough to mention it in a major history of all countries and times. In the article about Anarcha-feminism, the influence of non-American anarcha feminists is large, but in the section I deleted, Spanish and other women were not mentioned. I think that any section talking about this splinter group would need to be more global and it would need to describe more than 19th century history. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just be about Anarcha-feminists without cause to delete the whole section? For instance, Emma Goldman and the Mujeres Libres in the same section? Anarchism and communism had lots of influence on feminism. Speaking of which, where is Alexandra Kollontai? Commissarusa (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty strange to not mention Emma Goldman (or Voltairine de Cleyre) who represented pretty much every wave of feminism within her writings. Wordsofglass (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove Muhammed from History of Feminism[edit]

The article mentions Mohammed (the founder of Islam) as "One of the World's First Feminists". IMHO, it's like mentioning Hitler as a friend of the Jews. In any event, if there is the slightest reference to women's rights in the Quran, then you can find equal if not more numerous references of this kind in any religious book of any age, and one wonders why Wikipedia should only mention the Quran, which gave rise to some of the least women-friendly societies, particularly where it is interpreted literally. I frankly find it insulting to the millions of women who have virtually no rights in countries that enforce the letter of Mohammed's teaching. My name is Piero Scaruffi ( scaruffi@gmail.com ) and i don't have a Wikipedia account. I was researching early feminists and stumbled into this silly statement. It is not the first time that i stumble into statements that are clearly just propaganda of religious, political or business nature.69.181.203.152 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Mohammed mention is not a mainstream view. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If we are to take the references of Muhammad from this article then we may consider to remove it from Protofeminism#Middle_East. Faro0485 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide History of Feminism[edit]

As a suggestion for this article, I think it would be good to integrate the world history of feminism into the main body instead of having separate countries at the end. --Aronoel (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good; feminism isn't really a nationalist thing. (Though obviously there can be variations between countries). bobrayner (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Women's Liberation[edit]

The section discussing "Women's Liberation" is not really accurate. It says "'Liberation' has been associated with women's aspirations since 1895... The phrase 'Women's Liberation' was first used in 1964, and appeared in print in 1966."

Actually, the idea of liberation has been associated with the women's movement since its inception. In 1789, Olympe de Gouges wrote «Ce sexe trop faible et trop longtemps opprimé est prêt à secouer le joug d'un esclavage honteux.», which translates roughly to, "The sex too low and too long oppressed is ready to shake off the yoke of a shameful slavery." That's from her pamphlet Le bonheur primitif de l’homme, ou les rêveries patriotiques. Ferdinand Buisson used the phrase "libération des femmes" in 1911 in his Le Vote des Femmes (The Vote for Women), page 14. There are probably other examples, but those are two prominent ones. Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

4 stages may not be waves[edit]

A 1989 article on conservative feminism by Richard Posner, a judge and law lecturer, argues for four "stages" of feminist thought, in which in the first women seek relief from "legal disabilities", in the second they seek "affirmative benefits" to overcome what's left of discrimination (the second being current in 1989), and in the third they recognize some genderal differences for governmental policy but not for employment and "fourth-stage feminists, heavily represented in contemporary feminist jurisprudence, appear to claim" "that women and men should receive the same compensation even if there are profound and permanent mental and psychological differences between the sexes."<ref>All quotations: Posner, Richard A., ''Conservative Feminism'', in ''The University of Chicago Legal Forum'' (ISSN 0892-5593), vol. 1989 (issue ''Feminism in the Law: Theory, Practice and Criticism''), p. 209 and see p. 215 n. 46 (article: pp. 191–217) (revised from symposium remarks (Oct. 15, 1988)) (author judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, & sr. lecturer, Univ. of Chicago Law School).</ref> The author posits that the first two stages correspond to stages of the civil rights movement, but I don't think these stages correspond closely enough to the waves recognized in feminism to warrant mentioning the fourth stage in this article as a fourth wave. The most relevant passage now in the article is about developments since 2008, nearly 20 years after this author's article. I question whether the author believes his own description to be an authoritative restatement of the fourth stage or that the feminists he identifies as 4th-stage would offer similar descriptions. However, if another editor thinks it should be added, please feel free. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a "nowiki" tag error resulting in a formatting error: 15:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)) (Corrected useless link by moving it and reformatting reference accordingly: 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Any great reliance on Posner's four stages is going to be wp:undue emphasis. Posner is alone in this framework; everyone else talks about three waves of feminism leading to the 1970s, the notional fourth wave coming much more recently in the 2000s, not discussed in earlier works. Posner's criteria don't match the three or possibly four standard waves. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reintroduce Muhammad[edit]

There's enough mention of Muhammad in the protofeminism article that to remove him from here is to ignore the protofemnist section, disputes and praise altogether. Faro0485 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Philosophical roots[edit]

I came here looking for some information about the philosophical roots of modern feminism--e.g., in Marx and Engels, not to mention Hobbes and Locke--, but was unable to find it. There's not even a mention of any of these men here (because they are men?). Engels is cited in Marxist feminism however, but there's no mention of Locke. I don't know the reason for this gaping lacuna in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, but it seems to strongly require rectification. JKeck (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is deleted section on Women in Klan relevant to History of Feminism[edit]

CLOSED:

Closed as a disruption by a ban evading account.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{rfc|pol}}

Is the deleted section below, "Women in the Klan" relevant to the article? Brechbill123 (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


I just had an edit removed by Binksternet who went through and deleted a bunch of my edits in various articles. I am trying to add some light on right wing feminism in these articles, and she deleted two of my efforts AND gave me a bogus warning. I am going to assume ignorance and not malice. The text of my proposed edit is below, please comment to build consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talkcontribs) 01:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the strongest right wing social reform groups of the 1920's was the Ku Klux Klan, which boasted over 20 million male members during that decade including a number of governors and one U.S. president. A separate women's auxiliary also boasted millions of members. Activities of members of the Women's Ku Klux Klan including working to build the base of the Klan organizations by parades, cross lighting, lectures, speaking at events such as the Chautauqua movement rallies, and organizing boycotts. Both the regular and women's Klan were active in raising public awareness of rape, particularly black-on-white rape. On occasion they would take direct action by participating in seizing accused rapists and hanging them. They also had roles in ceremonies such as Klan weddings and funerals. The Women's Klan were active in promoting eugenics and birth control for what they regarded as inferior races. Their efforts in the schools included distributing Bibles and working for the dismissal of Roman Catholic teachers. Participation was limited to white Protestant women over 16 years of age. As a sex scandal rocked the Klan leadership late in the decade, popularity waned but numbers of women continue to participate in Klan organizations today. (Blee, Kathleen M. Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s. University of California Press, 2008.)

Your notion of "right-wing feminism" did not exist during the height of the Klan, and is barely credible today. Your proposed text has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with racism. None of the Klan women were fighting for women's rights, just white rights.
This whole distasteful paragraph appears to me to be an attempt to put extremely unflattering facts into the article, however, these facts are not on topic, not in the slightest. I looked over your other contributions and there are many problems with non-neutral anger related to feminism. You tried to put a Nazi woman's photograph in the Feminism article, but the woman was not a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Nazi woman's photo was placed in the Fascism section of the Feminism article. We're not done discussing whether it belongs there. Whether the facts are unflattering is hardly relevant, and begs the question, "Unflattering to who?" Both the left and right wing sides of feminism are equally relevant, no matter how flattering you think they might be. The fact is that feminist women fell out on both sides, and if you were familiar with the source book you would know that. While your ad hominem attacks certainly are off topic, this post is certainly not. I could as easily say that your deletion represents a non-neutral attempt to whitewash the history of feminism to minimize aspects that are considered to be less than flattering today.Brechbill123 (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The main point is that your proposed paragraph is completely off topic. I said it was "unflattering" in light of what some white women were doing in the 1920s, but these women were not feminists. Your concept that feminists were both right- and left-wing is not supported by any sources. They were left wing. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not my contention that feminists were both left and right wing. It is the contention of the authoress of the source. If you go to the Wikipedia article on Women in the Klan, which I did not write or contribute to, you will find three sources on right wing feminists. One of which I happen to have read. In addition to those sources, if you are familiar with the literature of the eugenics movement you will find other sources on right wing feminism. One notable example being Margaret Sanger. While Sanger associated with left-wing radicals prior to the First World War, after the war she moved into right wing eugenic circles. John D. Rockefeller (certainly no left-winger) was the primary supporter of her organization,. She also found common cause with other right wing eugenicists, speaking on one occasion on eugenics to a women's Klan meeting. Although she treated blacks with respect, she believe the white race to be superior to darker races. She also had connections with Nazi eugenicists and published their articles in her newsletter prior to the Second World War. In England today there are "Tory feminists." Look it up. In the United States, Concerned Women for America has been labeled "right wing feminist." There are scads of libertarian feminists, who are hardly left wing. Who is Tonie Nathan? Wendy McElroy? Christina Hoff Summers? Maybe you should educate yourself before you embarass yourself!Brechbill123 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing feminism exists, but the passage should be rewritten and I don't have the source. Women's auxiliaries are not generally feminist and, based on the passage, this one doesn't appear to be. It is possible for women to develop a feminist version of what the Klan believes in but I don't know if any did (I once found a far-right-feminist or racist-feminist newsletter from Florida). Many or most feminists would quickly reject any such alliance but, regarding the Klan, perhaps enough existed for weight. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg
This is what we're talking about, isnt it?
"Social reform group", "active in raising public awareness of rape", and "[taking] direct action"? IMHO that's about as far from WP:NPOV as one could possibly get. I know nothing about right-wing feminism or feminists in the Klan, so I can't say whether such a large section about it would be WP:UNDUE per se. But it definitely can't be in the article as it's currently written. It is rife with words to watch, and virtually every sentence pushes credulity to the limit. I don't think a single citation at the end of the section is going to cut it. Braincricket (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, how does organizing cross burnings, cheering at lynchings, promoting eugenics, and getting Catholics fired make one a feminist ("an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women")? WP:OFFTOPIC. Braincricket (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


New section on FEMEN[edit]

The new section that has been added on FEMEN seems excessive to me per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. The content is overly detailed for an article on the history of feminism. To start with, I would suggest deleting the last 4 paragraphs of that section as they detail specific events rather than giving an overview of FEMEN. I also think the initial sentence of the section may need to be edited to sound less promotional. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian protests[edit]

FEMEN protest in Paris on 31 Mar 2012
Main article: FEMEN
FEMEN is a Ukrainian feminist protest group based in Kiev, founded in 2008 by Anna Hutsol. The organization became internationally known for controversial[2] topless protests against sex tourists, religious institutions, international marriage agencies, sexism and other social, national and international topics.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

I pulled the above section during my copy edit because it is out of synch with the rest of the "National histories of feminism" section. I don't think adding FEMEN would be a problem if it accompanies the rest of the history of Ukranian (or even "Soviet") feminism. czar · · 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Pulled two sections[edit]

I also pulled the "Sociology of the family debate" and "Psychoanalysis" sections without edits as too academic, full of technical language, little overall coherence, a mess. Feel free to add it back when ready (it has some interesting stuff), but please give it the attention it needs first. Also if the majority of this can be reused, consider spinning it out and adding a summary-style intro in this article instead. (I could have possibly picked through the sources to reconstruct it, but I'll invoke IAR—the article's a total disaster and it needs to be mostly rewritten from the bottom up with attention towards summary style and the overall history.) I may do this myself once I get the requisite reference material. czar · · 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

4th wave[edit]

If there is more sourcing or content about a fourth wave of feminism, please add it. I searched a long time ago and I think I did not find more than what was cited (I think by me back then). Meanwhile, I've now provided one good source, closely akin to one that was previously cited, and not restored the Expand Section template, because I don't think there's a basis for the expansion the tag seeks. Mostly, I think a fourth wave of feminism is only an aspiration that has not become a large movement with its own identity and persistent people, organizations, core ideology, core goals, media, and events and which is distinct from other waves but it may be a small movement here and there (although some may posit that I have no basis for deciding what is a wave, something has to guide due weight). I would even fold the content I've now added into the article into an existing paragraph instead of giving it its own subsection because I don't think it deserves the prominence of a separate subsection, but I don't know where and it should be mentioned in the body, because it is probably searched for in Wikipedia and if we don't add it it probably will be added by someone somewhere, as I think used to be the case before I rationalized what I found. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

12 Asian nations[edit]

A source that covers the history of feminism in a dozen Asian nations, nine of which don't have subsections in this article, looks interesting. It's Roces, Mina, & Louise P. Edwards, eds., Women's Movements in Asia: Feminisms and Transnational Activism (London or Oxon: Routledge, pbk. 2010 (ISBN 978-0-415-48703-0)) (ed. Roces assoc. prof., School of History and Philosophy, University of New S. Wales, Sydney, Australia, & ed. Edwards prof. modern China, Univ. of Hong Kong, both per p. [i] & cover IV). If someone has the time, It's probably worth adding to this article:

  • Indonesia (chapter by Susan Blackburn)
  • Philippines (ch. by Mina Roces)
  • Pakistan (ch. by Andrea Fleschenberg)
  • Vietnam (ch. by Alessandra Chiricosta)
  • Thailand (ch. by Monica Lindberg Falk)
  • Hong Kong (ch. by Adelyn Lim)
  • Singapore (ch. by Lenore Lyons)
  • Korea (apparently except for North Korea 1948–present) (ch. by Seung-Kyung Kim & Kyunghee Kim)
  • Cambodia (ch. by Trudy Jacobsen)
  • Japan (ch. by Barbara Molony)
  • India (ch. by Sumi Madhok)
  • China (ch. by Louise P. Edwards)

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (Corrected re N. Korea's date: 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC))

Wave 0 or 0th wave[edit]

I did not treat the zeroth wave as its own subsection because I'm not sure it deserves the same weight as a wave as the first through fourth waves should have, although feminist practices and probably theory certainly predate the first wave and do deserve substantial weight on their own. However, for a label for the period, if more sources agree on Wave Zero (capitalization uncertain) or some equivalent, then the article should be edited accordingly. My view had been that there had been thousands of waves before what we generally call the first, but I have no source for that view (I may have seen one or maybe not) and perhaps Baumgardner's view is the better one. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a comparison of sources that use one over the other? czar  02:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of the ontology of "waves" is an unnecessary tangent, IMO. This article already suffers from too much detailed and tangential information (like the 3 paragraphs on feminist science fiction). It also seems a bit out of place to discuss early feminism in the "20th and 21st centuries" section. I would suggest either trimming the new material or moving most of it to "Early feminism". Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The ontology, once sourced, should be discussed in this article unless there's a better article for it, just as we often discuss histories. Waves are a popular and important part of feminism that turn up frequently in discussions of feminism and directly affect how feminists organize their efforts, e.g., with whom they associate in their feminist work. The naming of a wave by Lear was apparently in the N.Y. Times, which would likely make it harder to consider as trivial. I don't think an article on one of the specific waves would be a better destination for this content and I don't know which other article would be more suitable.
I don't have that comparison of sources. And I didn't Google deeply but initial items there (as of yesterday) seem weak as sources. Perhaps someone else has information to post.
I don't object to the deletion of the wave 0 content for now on a weight ground, although Baumgardner is notable and we can report her view as non-fringe even if she's alone in saying it. If sourcing turns up for multiple views on the point, it would be deserving of weight to present a debate from sourcing on how to treat feminism preceding the first wave, since otherwise there's a trap in assuming that the really important feminism only began with the waves, a trap Wikipedia is not responsible for causing absent sourcing but which affects readers' understanding of the subject.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Who tag[edit]

MacKinnon, a lawyer, has stated, "To be about to be raped is to be gender female in the process of going about life as usual."[1] She explained sexual harassment by saying that it "doesn't mean that they all want to fuck us, they just want to hurt us, dominate us, and control us, and that is fucking us."[2]

  1. ^ MacKinnon, Catherine. Only Words. London: Harper Collins, 1995. ISBN 0-674-63933-2
  2. ^ MacKinnon, Catherine. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. 1987, ISBN 0-674-29874-8

I added a {{who}} tag to "they all" in the second paragraph because it is unclear who "they all" is. The defense that we don't need to specify who because we're quoting directly doesn't make sense to me. Moreover, there surely must be a secondary source on MacKinnon's analysis that we can paraphrase instead of using her indirect language. czar  16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Once added, the Who tag belongs. What the phrase represents may seem obvious but probably the source makes clear who was meant and it should be added with brackets. Probably the source does so within the few pages immediately preceding the quoted content. I agree that the passage being a quotation does not obviate the need for that clarification; I think I usually provide it in similar kinds of quotations elsewhere. I probably would not have added the tag myself but once added it should stay until resolved.
I think I read both books years ago and I think they were secondary, so they would not need secondary sourcing for what they say. Requiring secondary sources for secondary sources could be endless and result in cutting most of Wikipedia.
I doubt the passage is indirect; she didn't need to be discussing named individuals only, but could well have referred to a class of individuals, and that would likely be acceptable for our purposes.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to reinstate it. Primary/secondary sourcing is in degrees from the source. So MacKinnon's written thoughts are primary sources when concerning MacKinnon and secondary sources on the topic of rape. An analysis of MacKinnon would be secondary. By paraphrase, I meant writing that MacKinnon is known for her work in this area (via secondary sources) and then summarizing her contributions to the field (as put by secondary sources) instead of using vague quotes. The point is that if she is worth mentioning in such a high-level overview article, it shouldn't be hard to find secondary sources on her position so as not to rely on direct quotes. I didn't suggest cutting most of Wikipedia, but rephrasing a single paragraph in a single article to better comply with policy. No brainer. czar  02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
If it isn't hard to find secondary sources on her position then why don't you find them and add them, instead of a gratuitous template inserted into a direct quote? It seems sloppy and should be removed and replaced with a clarification, if one is needed. Ongepotchket (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Not my prerogative. I added an unsightly tag during copyedit to show that there's something wrong, which is why inline templates exist. Remove the tags and the confused sections that preceded my copyedit will remain. czar  04:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The tag belongs until resolved. It is not gratuitous and the quotation being direct is irrelevant to the need to identify who was meant in the source (it is theoretically possible that no one was meant but that is highly unlikely and if, somehow, no one was meant then that can be stated).
Paraphrasing is generally fine in lieu of quotations, but sometimes quoting her work is as legitimate as paraphrasing it.
If both books are already secondary, as I think they are, it is not necessary under policy to find secondary sourcing that discusses their findings, but it can be good to add them if available. In most areas of scholarship, it is unusual to find much more than citations to a point made in a prior secondary source, especially by a different author, and it is not necessary to find such a discussion in order to cite the prior one. The two MacKinnon books would be secondary even though they state her opinions on issues, if they are not mainly about her personal experience being, say, sexually harassed but about what is known generally about the subject she covers, and she is a scholar in the relevant field. Most scholars include their opinions in most of the secondary sources they write and they're still secondary for that. We can quote her work and we can do so without finding other sourcing that describes her work, but if that non-MacKinnon sourcing is available I'd likely be supportive of its being added.
Nick Levinson (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

Some sections of the article are filled with praise, not neutrality. For example, a quote: "Given her humble origins and scant education, her personal achievements speak to her own determination." This is an evaluation of her character, one seemingly written by a big fan since it doesn't seem to have an outside source. 76.11.43.185 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)