Talk:List of feminists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Feminism (Rated List-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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Would be nice if the people listed where Alphabetical-- (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


I think a lot of these stub pages could be helped out really quickly with a little time at the library of Congress web page, just adding it books written to these shorter articles. I've done it already for Pamela Sue Anderson and plan on continuing. Here's a quick link for those that want to help out; Library of Congress Catalogs. Netbenefit 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Craft[edit]

Can someone please add/categorize Nikki Craft? Thanks. Dandelion1 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks Dandelion for adding me in the list of feminists. The category I would go in would be Second Wave. Never defined or described myself as a lesbian in public or private at any time in my life, and never been one, so I deleted my name from the list of lesbian feminists and left it on Second Wave. --~~

Is it an ideology to be french? The classification is not very logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:02, 6 December 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please define 'first wave' etc? It is not immediately obvious what this means. Thanks, Mark Richards 05:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Feminism

There's mention of it in the History section, but once I have some free time I'll try and expand/fill it out. I don't understand what you find confusing about List of feminists - it's broken in section of feminist leaning - within feminism there are some different ideologies and so forth. Thanks Dysprosia 04:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can we link to the explanation where the terms 'first wave' and other ideologies etc appear? What I found confusing, was that I didn't know what the terms meant, and so didn't understand how the list was organized. I may be the only one, but a brief paragraph at the head of the list explaining the categorisation might help? Thanks! Mark Richards 23:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added links to all the appropriate articles under each heading. hope that helps folks. Murderbike 10:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I came back to the page because I have had second thoughts about being listed here as a second wave feminist. Good example of why it's not a good idea to try to fit one's self into categories set up by others. I never use that term and Wikipedia says it ended in 1980. I've been active from 1970 to 2006 and continue to be. I don't even agree with the division, though I would not associate myself with what has come to mean 3rd wave feminism so I'll start another more accurate category for "Radikal Feminism" which is how I categorize myself. --Nikkicraft 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moved[edit]

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lists --Jiang 05:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ti-Grace Atkinson[edit]

I'm not yet ready to write an article on her, but I did want to place her name on this list-article. I noticed, however, that there is no Radical feminists heading. She could just as easily be placed under the Second wave heading, but it seems to me that radical feminism deserves its own heading. Any thoughts? func(talk) 19:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Simone de Beauvoir[edit]

Now, I'm not the brightest person in the world, nor do I know much about feminism (despite having written the Ti-Grace Atkinson article), but why is Simone de Beauvoir a first-wave and a second-wave feminist? -- The Great Gavini supporting the feminist cause since...

Asian feminists?[edit]

I was wondering whether there were Chinese, Japanese and Korean feminists. Could they be on this list? Where can I look for examples of their life and work? --Bronwyn Gannan 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC).


The organization of this list is far too complex and difficult to understand for the non-scholar, and categorization being as such seems to be original research. I suggest something more concrete or chronological. AdamBiswanger1 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

this list appears prone to original research. there are limited sources or citations to backup the inclusion of the people on the list.

Religious Feminists[edit]

Should there be a section of religious feminists? There is an article on Religious feminism. --Nathan Holland 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissident and anti-feminists[edit]

Dissident feminists, okay, for people who self-describe as feminists but are critical of most feminism. But anti-feminists? I don't think "anti-feminists" should be on a list of "feminists". Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a separate list of anti-feminists? and these two lists should link to each other? --lquilter 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

agreed. it would be strange to put a section of satanists in a list of christians. Murderbike 09:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Or "Dissident Christians and atheists" and include Richard Dawkins. <g> --lquilter 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I changed the section to "Dissident feminists" and took out Ann Coulter who describes as anti-feminist. Except for Norah Vincent, the others I think reasonably qualify as "dissident feminists". Vincent I'm not sure really belongs: I'm not sure she ever describes herself as feminist of any sort. I posted a question on her page. --lquilter 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


shouldn't there be a section for feminist organizations? they aren't worked into the other categories, so seems it should be added. Murderbike 09:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds fine to me. At some point it should be split off. There is a category for Category:Feminist organizations, though -- what do you mean by "they aren't worked into the other categories"? Oh - do you mean, there aren't orgs in the individual subheadings of the article, like 2d wave, 3d wave, etc.? Hmm. If an org specifically defines or aligns or was clearly historically part of a particular subhead then we could put it there. Otherwise maybe just a separate group of generic feminist orgs? --lquilter 14:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah, i was referring to the subheadings, not wiki Categories, my flub. i thought of it because of the article i made for Rote Zora, which definitely could go under radical feminism. i just couldn't figure if there was a reason that groups had been left out of this list. Murderbike 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Life Feminists[edit]

Why are pro-life feminists excluded from this list despite the fact that they would include Graciela Olivarez, Fannie Lou Hammer, Patricia Heaton, Jeannine Parvati Baker (a published author) Maya Angelou, Alice Paul, Dorothy Day, ect . . . ?

Well there would need to be some agreement that they were feminists at all. And a lot of academic scholarship would seem to suggest that by popular definition, they are not.Netbenefit 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At least a few of the women listed lived when the importance of the legal right - whatever their personal views - to that very fundamental part of bodily autonomy *may* not have been as widely circulated, so perhaps we might consider the fuller body of their feminism in terms of whatever different key feminist issues there may have been during their time. Am not informed enough to say, but just a thought ...Res.being (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


User:Exeunt recently removed several people from the list without giving any explanation in edit summaries or on this page. I reverted the removal, and have requested Exeunt take up the issue here before removing people in the future. Murderbike (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Joseph Stalin included in this list? Should he be removed? (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd?[edit]

Is Maureen Dowd really a third-waver? To be honest, the only mentions I've seen of her on third-wave blogs (several of them) are criticizing her. Here's some examples; [1], [2], [3] ,[4], [5], [6], [7][ < part of an ongoing series at Shakesville] ... there was at least one positive mention [8] but for a political stance rather than anything supporting gender equality.

Though those four blogs are rather prominent in the third-wave blogosphere, do you think these are representative enough to take MoDo off the list?

Res.being (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless a RS (ie, not a blog) explicitly states she is a third-wave feminist, she ought to be removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is POV and should be deleted[edit]

This article is a list of women who are feminists, and some alleged "feminists" who I think do not deserve the title. The list of "dissident feminists" is especially ridiculous. There is no such ideology as "dissident feminism." This entire article should be deleted, since there is nothing to back up these categories, which are simply somebody's POV opinion. Guuao (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok Guuao, hold on a sec. Yes I agree with you about the 'opinion sub-lists' such as dissident feminists which is ridiculous but that's not areason for teh whole list to go or for the verifiable sub-lists to be removed. I do think the polyamourous sub-section and others are silly but some others are fine. Not everything here is pov. Could you be more specific about which listed persons you object to and provide a sourced reason for this?--Cailil talk 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the lists are in my view nonsense. I removed a couple of the sillier ones. Of the rest, many (Polish feminists, etc) are based on geography or nationality, not ideology, so the article is very misleading. It cannot provide proper coverage of all feminists, since some would not fit into any list, and should be deleted. I have a serious problem with the lesbian list, as it does not distinguish between feminists who happen to be lesbians and those who are lesbian-separatists. Guuao (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

These are good reasons to have objections Guuao - could you list the people who you are saying are not feminists. Also I would suggest just removing the sub-category headings and making the page into one list--Cailil talk 11:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion may make the page more acceptable. I will note that the "lesbian" list, as it confuses simply being a lesbian with taking a particular political position, is dubious in terms of Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons. It includes a number of women (Urvashi Vaid, for example) who are lesbians but who have never identified politically as lesbian separatists. I will focus my efforts on dealing with that part of the article. Guuao (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that most of this article is absolute bollocks. I think it's useful and important to have a list of prominent feminists, but the list should be limited to only those women who can actually be identified with the feminist movement. This would rule out non-feminist supporters of women's suffrage and anyone who died before the word "feminist" was invented in 1872. To call Helen of Anjou a feminist is presentism in the extreme.---Puff (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Phenomena usually exist before any particular word is invented. The stars in the sky have colors even though the light bringing the colors to our eyes left the stars millions of years ago. Archeologists discover diseases in prehistoric people and name those diseases even though those names didn't exist when those people were alive. Whether feminism had a word or needed a paragraph doesn't matter. We and sources may apply today's definitions to determine who in history and sometimes prehistory fits any word with that definition. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Scrubbing the list a bit[edit]

I'm trying to go through and remove names which are redlinked and which I don't turn up any significant hits in Google News and Google Scholar. I'll probably make some mistakes because of slight differences in the names here and the name they are best known by. Still, without some significance/description attached to the person on this list, there is no way for me to tell who they are. This relates to the lack of WP:RSs on this list. At least with people who have WP articles, you can go to those articles and probably basically confirm they belong on the list. I'm trying to start stub articles on some of the redlinks but admit the majority of the names are unknown to me so I don't have an inkling where to start. Oh, and I removed Thomas Paine. I just don't see the evidence to call him a "feminist." Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria is weak[edit]

For the list to be appropriately maintained, clear inclusion/exclusion criteria should be in the lead text (see WP:LSC). I have added a basic requirement for references when a biographical page is unavailable. Any suggestions for refinement?—Ash (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The lede sentence says: "This is a list of important participants in the development of feminism." So, I would think that this is the criteria? Although I love that someone pondered including John Lennon, does he really fit that criteria? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
If this is the case, at minimum I think some of the early historical figures should have a title other than "feminist" specifically. For example Pocahontas, on whose WP page I saw no mention of gender politics or women's rights. Or Bettisia Gozzadini, according to her WP page an Italian noblewoman who received a prestigious degree (purportedly by disguising herself as a man) and otherwise seems to have had no connection with feminism. Or Lucrezia Marinelli for that matter. I have seen a few claims of her being a "women's rights activist" and holding "feminist ideas", but as far as I could find with a brief search her only substantial connection to gender issues was in writing "The Nobility and Excellence of Women, and the Defects and Vices of Men", which argued for the distinct superiority of women - not for gender equality, and not for women's rights.
Pending further evidence, perhaps "protofeminist" is fair enough for the latter, but for the others I think "inspiration to feminists" or "prominent woman" would be a more even-handed and transparent description. (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Sections[edit]

If there are separate sections for "Second-wave feminists", "Third-wave feminists", "Ecofeminists", "French feminists", "Muslim feminists", and "Other feminists", then what's the first category of "Feminists" supposed to be for? Everyone in it will definitely fit into at least one of the other categories, and everyone in the other categories will fit into it - in fact, everyone in the list is guaranteed to fit into at least two categories! My suspicion is that this list started with an American cultural POV with everyone assumed to be American unless otherwise stated - I haven't checked everyone to see if they are all American, but the 2nd and 3rd wave stuff certainly seems to be. I think the article should be re-arranged, possibly in one of two ways. Either rename the first section "American Feminists" (if my suspicions are correct) and make the second-wave and third-wave lists subordinate to it. Or if I'm wrong, possibly lose the current categories and split it into sections alphabetically? Any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer, as I inferred: The section for Feminists is for unclassified, i.e., those for whom classifications are unknown or not yet determined. The section for Other Feminists, on the other hand, is for feminists who don't fit the stated classifications, despite having been considered for them. I recently added two to the first because I didn't want to try to classify them, as that can involve many considerations. Almost every entry is linked to an article, so I don't think more is needed, although it would be helpful. If no article is available, then further information is needed for an entry, but otherwise it's not crucial.
As to French feminists and other national and ethnic classifications, they may or may not be distinct. Merely living in a place is not relevant for this list. But feminism is influenced by intersections; e.g., Russian feminism and Black (U.S.) feminism have different starting points. Living in a place and developing a feminism in response to the form of masculism experienced there may produce a distinct feminism, with different emphases. French feminism was criticized in print by Mary Daly.
Possibly, the differences between the second and third waves are beyond American borders; I haven't read enough third-wave lit to know. The argument could be made either way.
Some classifying is helpful, considering why the list exists at all. We might want the list to remind us of a name we can't quite remember, but the classifying makes the list more useful, just as having a list of feminists is more useful than a unclassified list of all females or of all people. However, classifying adds a maintenance burden when an article is amended, meaning the list is likely to fall behind.
Nick Levinson (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I think some sort of classification is a good idea. However, I really don't think having the two sections, "Feminists" and "Other Feminists", is good - it's certainly not in any way clear what the two are supposed to be for. And I do strongly suspect that the article was originally put together from the POV of US feminist history - my initial perusal of the first category suggested there were some that were relevant to the follow-on 2nd-wave and 3rd-wave sections, which represent US-inspired feminist movements (even if they do carry across borders). So I think some sort of category before "2nd-wave" is needed - there can't have been a 2nd-wave unless there had been something that preceded it.
But having said all that, I'm really not sure how to improve it. I don't know enough of the subject to analyse and categorise different individuals properly, so maybe it's best if I just leave it in the hope that someone more knowledgeable can improve things some time. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

propose to remove cleanup and refimprove tags[edit]

This is a list, so it consists of links and information that appear in the linked-to articles. So there's no need for verifiable references, since they should all be in the linked-to articles. Almost no names are redlinked and they have almost no other information stated with them, and they don't need the refimprove template either, because refs should go into the articles the creation of which redlinking invites. If any linked-to article is wanting, that article should be tagged, not this list. I copyedited this list. No current talk topic explains what cleanup is needed. So I propose to delete both templates. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the redlinked items. That would have been my only objection to taking down the tags, so I would say go ahead and do it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Major re-write 20 March 2013[edit]

Since nobody seemed very happy with the existing groupings of feminists this re-write has been written chronologically.

NOTE: To avoid the 19th and 20th-century lists becoming too long, and the 21st-century list being very short I have divided the eras along the following lines. (This also makes more sense for the different feminist eras such as suffrage and the different 'waves':

  • Early 19th-century feminists = Born up to and including 1874.
  • Late 19th-century and early 20th-century feminists = Born 1875 to 1939
  • Late 20th-century and 21st-century feminists = Born 1940 onwards

Essentially it is the previous list but reorganized. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

13th-18th century feminists[edit]

Is there a source to back up the inclusion of all these women who lived before 1800? If not, they should be removed. At the moment, it just seems like someone has decided to pick some random prominent women from the Middle Ages anachronistically call them feminists. There wasn't such a thing as Feminism before roughly the end of the 18th century, and although some of these figures might well have be seen now as forerunners to the modern feminist movement that isn't quite the same thing as being a feminist. Joe Roe (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Feminism was not invented in the 18th century. The word may have been (even assuming, as primary dictionary editors generally don't, that the date of the earliest use known in evidence is the same as the date of actual first use). Color existed millions of years before anyone spoke any language and we know color existed back then because it's in the light coming from stars millions of light-years away. The word was applied to a meaning that already existed. Linguistic representations before a single word exists can be in phrases, paragraphs, and longer passages and can be written or verbal. It is permissible and useful to characterize old texts by modern classifications and this is done in many fields, including anthropology and theology. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC) (Corrected phrase's syntax: 16:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC))
I am not talking about the word feminism, I'm saying that the intellectual tradition the word refers to belongs to the modern era and did not exist before the 18th century. Calling Eleanor of Aquitaine a feminist is like calling Wat Tylor a Marxist or Cato a Republican.
I'll repeat: are there WP:RS that call these historical figures feminists? If not, there's no basis for including them in this list. Joe Roe (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If they, in any way, spoke out for women´s rights or reforms in favour of women's rights and gender equality, they fulfill the purpose of this list. Catharina Ahlgren, for example, did speak out for women's rights and gender equality, as did Sophia Elisabet Brenner. However, it is true some should not be here: Christina of Sweden, as I understood, may have lived a life unusually free for a woman of her period, but she was certainly not in favor of women's right--Aciram (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree on reliable sourcing, keeping in mind that the list is of people key to feminism's "development", as the lead says, and often people contribute to developing an idea or a practice by contributing a part or an angle rather than a proto-whole. Thus, based on skimming the articles, Marie de France and Christina, Queen of Sweden (Christina of Sweden) appear to be relevant (the latter in that lesbianism and outward manliness contribute to the idea that female sex is not a limit on gender, in that one can cross the binary gender line, thus showing that women have some genderally unbound opportunities if they take them (if they can take them), albeit with a risk of criticism, as from a Pope). I haven't checked further. If these are marginal contributors, I favor including them anyway, per the lead, else we'd need to start a second list only of marginal contributors, thus increasing the maintenance burden, as people ask to which list person X belongs. That someone led a conflicted life is probably not dispositive; for any feminist, one can probably find a shortcoming, but feminist historians do not usually require purity. I can imagine a queen who argued for a queen to have the same right to rule as a king would have while also ordering the beheading of feminist women, and the queen might still count for her contribution. On the other hand, in some other cases the feminist contribution could be too small to count. If anyone has in mind a particular individual of any century who does not qualify, please edit or post. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Erin Pizzey is a feminist? On which planet?[edit]

This whole page is ridiculous. Feminism didn't even exist until the latter half of the 20th century. The suffragettes were diametrically opposed to the things that modern feminists are fighting for.

The wikipedia article on Erin Pizzey contains this: 'Pizzey said in 2009 that she has "never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men".' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellznrg (talkcontribs) 15:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Feminism existed regardless of when the word did. Dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary date the earliest use known to its editors, which is not proof of earliest use ever. And if a word did not exist but a phrase, paragraph, or concept did, that's acceptable. Lots of feminist literature predate the 20th century.
I'm not knowledgeable on Pizzey. Maybe there's a disagreement, in which case we can report it. Some feminists don't or didn't self-identify as such; others may have described them as such.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Setting aside the other remarks being made here, claiming Erin Pizzey as a feminist is certainly questionable. While she has a history of involvement with domestic violence shelters, she apparently has little love for feminism. See here for a 2009 article by Erin Pizzey entitled, "Why I loathe feminism... and believe it will ultimately destroy the family". Quoting from the article:
Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.
See also a 2013 article by Pizzey, relating to a protest which devolved into an "ugly demonstration" (her words). Apparently the link is blacklisted, but you are welcome to fact check by removing the spaces: http:// www.avoiceformen .com/feminism/erin-pizzey-reflects-on-toronto/. Quoting Pizzey:
Though I am horrified at their actions, part of me is celebrating because finally here is the true, ugly face of the women’s movement, stripped of its phony, egalitarian mask, and placed on permanent display for the world to see. For too many years the truth has been hidden behind intellectual arguments and bureaucratic edifices while the virulent ideologues produced by feminism have burrowed their way into positions of power and influence.
To most people watching the demonstration the women and their sad male hangers-on looked violent and dysfunctional; so much so that they may have been taken as outliers, exceptions to the feminist rule. However, these are the same kinds of women I have encountered many times before; women who are at once determined to brand all men as “violent” and “oppressive,” but who routinely use violence and intimidation themselves as a means to enforce their will on others.
I can also point you toward a reddit "ask me anything" thread hosted by Pizzey. She makes a few negative comments regarding feminism throughout, such as in no particular order:
  • The feminists won't give up any of their beliefs, because it is those beliefs that they have brainwashed unsuspecting organizations and parliaments and your Congress and across the world, particularly the United Nations, that brings them in, millions, billions of dollars ringfenced for women only. Why would they give up a cash cow?
  • What makes you assume that I think all feminists are radical? I have always made it absolutely clear that MOST men and women are equity feminists. The problem is you have these very powerful people with a lot of money calling themselves feminists who are not about equality, and they are speaking for you. Wake up and smell the coffee. If you genuinely believe in equality, why would you use a gynocentric word for yourself? If you believe in "Patriarchy Theory" that men have oppressed women for thousands of years, then whether you realize it or not, you are saying something hateful, not just about men but about women too.
  • I did manage to get exactly one paper published, decades after the fact, on the surveys I did of the first 100 women in my Refuge. Just one, in a tiny journal. "Practice report; A compative study of battered women and violence-prone women." That was in Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2009, if you can find it. But the feminist hegemony has worked hard to keep work like this out of the public eye.
  • Well first of all, it's resistance to knowing at the bottom of this entire subject is the decision made many years ago by the feminist movement that they would never accept women's violence towards men as an issue because they would have to share their billion dollar industry.
As long as they can convince the powers that be that men are abusers they can sit in their luxurious ivory towers and laugh at the suffering of men and boys.
Lastly a brief video from an interview with Pizzey, here. Although the cuts probably skew the presentation, I think Pizzey's words are revealing of her position on feminism.
I will refrain from making an edit here partly due to incompetence, and partly due to non-neutrality. I hope this is enough information to merit a second look, however. (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Helen Keller : A feminist?[edit]

Why Helen Keller included in this list? I have not seen articles about the relationship with feminism and Helen Keller. Please cite with good reference else I request here to remove her.

Abhilashkrishn (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Without solid citation, this cannot be accepted. Hence removing her. Please add a good citation if need to add her.

Abhilashkrishn (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The citation is in her article, she was a suffragist. The citations for all of the feminists in this list are to be found on their individual articles. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have checked both of the citations you mentioned. Neither of them contains the word Helen Keller. Please cite with suitable source as both of them does not contain anything to prove the above comment.Abhilashkrishn (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Removing her. Please add her with verifiable source. -Abhilashkrishn (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

John Lennon[edit]

I've noticed John Lennon's removed without explanation on a couple of occasions. The early years section of his biography article has a block quote, part of which reads,

"...I ended up living with her elder sister. Now those women were fantastic ... And that was my first feminist education ...".

The album Some Time in New York City by Lennon/Ono also has a number of feminist tracks.

Lennon was a feminist, a male feminist, but a feminist nonetheless. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

reference for Queen Christina of Sweden[edit]

I was reading Christina, Queen of Sweden today after seeing Garbo's Queen Christina. I have not read any of her writings (there are letters and an autobiography, maybe more) to know whether or not she included feminist topics in them, but her actions were certainly feminist. I am pleased to see her included on this list and would like to see her WP article categorized under "Feminism", but I don't know how to do that. Fingers crossed that the editors of her article will agree. She is discussed in A History of Their Own: Women in Europe From Prehistory to the Present, Volume II (pages 34 and 54-58), by Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinssein. 1999: Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN: 0195128397; ISBN-13: 9780195128390. (There are also many other feminist women included within the two volumes.) Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion[edit]

I would like to start a discussion on the standards of inclusion for this list. I think that a reasonable set of guidelines would be: (Pick two, or if all three, then they are a definitive feminist.)

  • The person has been described as a 'Feminist' by multiple reliable sources.
  • The person has not denied being a feminist.
  • The person themselves have acknowledged that they are a feminist.

Would anybody care to critique these broadly construed guidelines? I only feel that they are necessary due to the sheer nature of this page, and that the word 'Feminist' was not used before it was invented to describe the suffrage movement and the 1st wave. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the same test should be applied as is used with "feminist" categories, e.g. WP:DEFINING. Do reliable sources regularly describe so and so as a feminist? We're going to have to accept some anachronism here, since sources are anachronistic about it. Self-identifying as a feminist is somewhat irrelevant (unless the person has clearly stated "I'm not a feminist", which I suppose happens as well), a great many movie stars identify as feminist but they shouldn't be added here. Someone should write a script to synchronize Category:Feminists with this list. We generally don't categorize people by their beliefs, we categorize them when those beliefs lead to something - eg significant writing, significant activism, etc. There are many Category:Democrats, but we really only categorize politicians, not Joe Blow the movie star who voted for Obama. Another problem is, when does someone get one of the many feminist-flavor tags? That one I could see a bit more self-identification added - e.g. if Sally is described as a feminist, and she describes herself as a sex-positive feminist, she can be added to that tighter category, we can perhaps afford to be less particular.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs) is on the right tract when s/he mentions anachronism. The terms "feminism" and "feminist" are very new in the history of things. But who would doubt that Mary Wollstonecraft (for example), who lived and worked long before the emergence of these terms, is one? Therefore, the criteria that one acknowledged themselves as a feminist, or did not deny it, is moot. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
We ultimately should rely on the sources used in the particular articles. However, in many of the articles, "Feminism" and "Feminist" and "Protofeminist" are not present in the article, and sources for these articles are not present when given research into it. Should I therefore remove them from the list? Tutelary (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you are totally correct when you say that WP articles cannot be used as reliable sources, Tutelary (talk · contribs). It is Wiki-verbotten. Surfing to those article's citations for the info, however, IS one way to go, as you say. I forgot about that "protofeminist" term. I've never liked it, myself. To my ear, it sounds like "2/3 of a person" or something similar. ^_^ Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that I am right to remove them from the list absent a reliable source saying that they are indeed a feminist (or that their article says so with a citation). Tutelary (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Original Research Tag[edit]

I added the original research tag because Wikipedia articles as sources are not reliable, and the claims of people being feminists need to be substantiated to reliable sources. The only way to prove that an edit is not original research is to provide a reliable source that supports the edit being made. If there is a citation in the aforementioned articles that can be given towards the claim of that individual being a feminist, and due to this list, an inline citation can be given. This article is not exempt from WP:Verifiability or the need for reliable sources due to being a list. Tutelary (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Camille Paglia[edit]

How can Camille Paglia, a self-identified long-time feminist activist be left off this list. Or are only certain kinds of feminist allowed? (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not just add her? She's in multiple feminist categories already, doesn't seem to be in dispute.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
She described herself as a dissident feminist but did not take a feminist position on any issue and did not advocate for feminism, only criticized feminism, in a book she wrote on feminism and art criticism and in an article profiling her (she approved of the article). She was against rape but only those rapes to which men were opposed. I don't think there's a ground for including her as a feminist. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this article should debate this. If she is in feminist categories and described as a feminist in her article, we should add her here. If you dispute her being in feminist categories, take it up at her page...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The article on her suggests that she may have been a feminist in the past but other than that is only a feminist because she calls herself one and limits her work in that field to criticizing feminism. On feminism, she is probably much more notable for criticizing than for supporting, which means that inclusion of her in this list would at least need justification in the list's body or lead. This list's inclusion criteria seem to be limited to what is stated in the lead; thus, to include Paglia would mean including a nearly uncountable quantity of people (especially men) who opposed women's rights on the ground of being thereby "important ... in the development of feminism"; I don't think there'd be consensus for that for this list, although perhaps for a separate (and new) list of opponents of feminism. Categories can be more inclusive than lists in order to promote finding articles, whereas a list is more akin to being an article. A talk post, supra, says that this list had a section for dissident feminists, and for all I know perhaps that included Paglia, but it has disappeared. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
If Camille Paglia is listed as a major feminist in books on feminism, she should be included in the list (and a reference should be provided). Whether she has remained a feminist is not relevant to inclusion.
Names seem to get added to and removed from this list with scant regard for sources, so I am currently attempting to add some references - at least for those named as major feminists in relevant books. --Boson (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Paglia: Yes. And, since Wikipedia reports controversies, we should include sourcing that says that she's not a feminist; I think several feminist leaders have publicly rejected Paglia's claim, Gloria Steinem being one when, I think, she said that Paglia is a surrogate man.
That being a feminist is sufficient for inclusion despite later being not one is valid, assuming we apply that to everyone. For Paglia, if the claim in sourcing is that she used to be a feminist, we should date her feminism, probably to a year range or as "up to" a given year or life event.
Sourceless list items are common in lists and generally that needs rectifying.
Nick Levinson (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Anna Paddock?[edit]

On September 12th, anonymous user added to the list: "Anna Paddock, American,(b. 2000)". I did a hurried browser search without finding a 14 year-old feminist by this name. The name is linked to a WP non-article. Vandalism? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a red link, but I could also not find any sources listing her as a major feminist. I have tagged the entry with "citation needed" and will remove shortly. --Boson (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've left plenty of red links in my wake, too. I didn't doubt her because of that. To be considered a feminist at age 14, she must be quite remarkable, but I couldn't find a reference for that name as a feminist. I was thinking along the lines of a proud parental addition or a boyfriend trying to impress a girl. Thanks for the deletion. I don't know how to wrangle tables and was afraid of botching it up. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I have had my fair share of problems with tables, templates, brackets, etc., as you can perhaps see from the history (which is only the tip of the iceberg because I try to sort out problems in preview mode), but I think I'm getting better. The problems tend to occur when all the technical syntax comes together with something like )|]]''}}||[[, especially if you accidentally delete one of the characters and the table displays all wonky - or not at all. Feel free to ask if you think I can help with anything. --Boson (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing Neeru Tandon 2008 Book to Label multiple feminsts[edit]

Reading through the Neeru Tandon 2008 book titled Feminism: A Paradigm Shift. In this book she sites many women that this page then sites to classify these women into distinct sub-feminism groups, for or against. Her book does not source any of the information she presents for these classification, and appears as a relative footnote, failing to expand on where this information was obtained, and how each labeled person fits into each category. As such does not meet the requirements to be used as a source making this fall under WP:QS as it would be personal opinion. We shouldn't simply allow 1 source to dictate any labels, and we should strive to be as impartial as possible, or link multiple sources before labeling someone.

I think calling Tandon a questionable source is a bit overstated. WP:QS states:

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."

I have seen no evidence that she
  • has a poor reputation
  • lacks meaningful editorial oversight or
  • has an apparent conflict of interest.
Before Tandon was added, the entry was probably completely unsourced, so I think that is an improvement.
At present, I would be glad if we could just get at least one source for every entry.
It would, of course, be better if we had several sources, but I don't think WP:QS rules out the use of this source by any means.
As a matter of editorial judgement, though,I would agree, that we should be careful with labels. I would see the entry in the "source" column mainly as supporting the inclusion of the person in the list at all, especially the Tandon book, which lists "major feminists".
Were you thinking of anyone special that appears to be mislabelled?
--Boson (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)