Talk:Who Stole Feminism?

Lead

The lead is meant to summarize the main body of the article: nothing should appear in the lead that doesn't also appear in the rest of the article. I have accordingly removed the details of reviews of Sommers's books from the lead, and relocated them elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'd like to note that the description of Nina Auerbach's review of the book is not sourced to the original review. It is sourced to this, which is an exchange of letters subsequent to the original review. This really isn't good enough; the original review needs to be used instead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

I'm not too sure about the article's neutrality. It seems like it was written by someone very sympathetic to the author's viewpoint, and combative towards feminism. The first two paragraphs of the "Reception" section include a quote from Camille Paglia, which frames it within the wider context of criticism of establishment feminism (nothing wrong with that per se). The second paragraph is quite lengthy and discusses a supposed attempt by "campus feminists" to "suppress the book". That's quite a big accusation, and yet it's only backed up by a single source. It's also extremely leading - "predictable trashing", its critics were "so obviously malicious and dishonest" and "many newspaper columnists commented on what they saw as unethical behaviour". All this from a single source?

Contrast that with the paragraph below - the criticism offered of the book is mostly in terms of factual errors. Why doesn't this paragraph instead try and examine what "campus feminists" were saying about the book? Or if Auerbach's review was "so obviously malicious and dishonest", why not find a feminist review of the book that had some more legitimate criticisms? At the moment the contrast between these two sections seems pretty heavily contrasted between praise of the book which frames it within broader political discussions of the book among critics of feminism and criticism of the book which is largely apolitical and limited to factual errors. There's not really a diversity of viewpoints on display here.

Might I suggest that this is revised? Not all feminism is absurd and Christina Hoff Sommers is herself a target of much criticism, and some of it might be legitimate. At the moment, that is not well-represented by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.156.126 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone is always going to complain about this article's neutrality, whatever it says. There is no reason why Paglia cannot be used as a source, nor is there any reason why the article should not quote people who said favorable things about the book - there is a difference between simply quoting them and presenting their views in Wikipedia's voice. If you can find sources that are critical of the book, then by all means use them; the article would be improved by citing both supportive and critical views. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)