Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Identification, scare quotes, weasel words

She identifies as a feminist and there is "No true Scotsman" test for that. Her views on feminism are sought after almost exclusively so the argument she is not a feminist is extremely dubious. There is no one "feminist" test. She self-identifies as a feminist. No other feminists are bracketed into a sub-feminist genre so her identification is enough. Period. End of discussion (it's the same with "TERF" - we don't decide "TERF" vs. "Feminist"). The lede focuses too much on what others think she is against rather than what she has stated she is for. In the body, it says "she claims to her students" while the more neutral source for that uses the term "explains to her students." Rather than state an ideology of a reviewer that is made without any sourcing, it is preferred to just identify the reviewer. All of this is correcting a negative false light narrative which is against BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @ImprovingWiki: as I am not sure the edit shows as a revert. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the discussion above? There is no consensus to call Sommers a feminist in the article. Personally, I simply don't care about that issue, but you certainly have no right to call Sommers a feminist in the article when there is no agreement for that. It's dumb and childish to say things like "End of discussion" on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project, where no one person is in command, and it matters what your fellow editors think. Even if there were a good case for calling Sommers a feminist, it's simply silly to suggest that it's a BLP violation not to do so; whether to identify her as a feminist or not is partly a matter of editorial judgment. Incidentally, BLP does not mean, despite what you seem to think given your edit summary here, that "negative information is to be removed." WP:BLP does not say anything like that, and a moment's thought would show that such an approach could never be followed (otherwise, it would be impossible to write articles about criminals, for example). Rather, it means that any "negative" material in the article must be carefully cited, proportionate, and of encyclopedic relevance. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you don't even try to justify most of your changes. What was the BLP reason for adding the words " which she calls 'victim feminization' " to the lead supposed to be? As far as I can see, that's simply unnecessary verbiage and does not improve the article at all. Please stop adding it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that a brand new editor has just showed up and made an edit similar to yours here, you might want to see WP:MEAT, among other policies. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read the discussion above. They mistakenly believe feminism is a judgement call by the editor. Like other groups that don't have an inclusion criteria, we defer to the person making the claim - we don't exclude them. There are many examples - we don't even question self-identified women, let alone a feminist that makes living as a feminist author, speaker and professor. We don't distinguish TERFs from feminists either. Or even just radical feminists. Leave off the conditional aspect as if she is not a "true" feminist. We then can use other sources to explain her feminist positions and also critics. I added "what she calls 'victim feminization'" because it's taken directly from the source [1] used for the lead and "equity feminist" is not. Also, it is about an idea, not a person. It doesn't make any claims or qualifiers about another feminist. Before my edit, it was negative in tone and balance. Instead of explaining her views, it was nearly all about her critics' views of her. You can get stuffed on your meat puppet claims. --DHeyward (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The label needs to be a reliably sourced one. Her calling herself a feminist is not enough to make her a feminist, especially when the weight of reliable sources describes her as an anti-feminist. aprock (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd think that WP:BLPPRIMARY certainly applies in this instance, especially because they run a Youtube webshow with the username 'The Factual Feminist' and ascribes to what she calls 'Equity feminism.' Just because some sources have disputed that doesn't mean she's all of a sudden not a feminist. This discussion also reeks of what I think of as a misuse of sources. I'm sure we can find a ton of sources that dispute Barrack Obama's status as non-American, but that's not present in the article. Ultimately, I believe that her word should be the final say in terms of identification. She identifies as a feminist, and therefore is. Now, there is an argument to be made that for certain things, she ascribes to the label but uses it as sort of an identity politics sort of thing. Like, claiming to be a Staunch conservative and proposing things like universal healthcare, total reforms of everything, da da da. That can be important to note, but the ultimate identity methinks should be feminist. Maybe those sources can elaborate on her overall views, but I don't think we can deny her the label. Tutelary (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. You are going to need to come up with sources more robust than "youtube username". aprock (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I sourced it to the Stanford article that cites her work numerous times as a classical liberal feminist. There are many varieties of feminists in the literature. Even our handy feminism template lists all sorts of feminist positions and theories. Feminists critical of other feminists doesn't make one or the other less so. There is no standard bearer or mantle from which the label is drawn. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That source does not describe Sommers as a feminist. aprock (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, as per above [2], there is a significant body of sources which describe her as anti-feminist. If you want to apply some sort of label to her, it's up to you to find high quality mainstream sources which establish that label. As it stands, the article is better served by not trying to label her. aprock (talk)

It absolutely does both explicitly and as scholarly reference. See section entitled "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist Works", and see "Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000)." "Some equity feminists argue ...(Sommers 2007)" and there are more. Sommers argues the equity feminist points in her works whence the references aren't that Sommers observed equity feminists, rather the Stanford piece uses her work as an example of equity feminist views. She is also not the only one they use. Other sources are free to characterize her views any way they want as she can also criticize theirs. We are certainly not going to put Sommers "victimization" views in other feminist BLPs though so we should not be so quick to put her critics views here as if they were stone tablets. --DHeyward (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing citing someone with describing someone. aprock (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why I explained they were citing them as holding the position, not as observers. It's why the citations are broken out as "Liberal Feminism" and "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian". That occurs when they are attributing ideology, not just citation. Read Wendy McElroy as she is cited exactly the same way and it is the coverage of her views. It's nearly comical to claim that the phrase she coined to describe her views doesn't apply to her. "Equity feminists" exist and she is why they are called that. --DHeyward (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your explanation amounts to editor synthesis. Not a proper use of sources. aprock (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick search reveals an IAmA (sort of like an interview) on Reddit where you considers herself an equity feminist; http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nqdqp/i_am_christina_hoff_sommers_author_of_who_stole/ The IAmA was confirmed by her and as a result, it can be stated that yes, she self identifies as an equity feminist. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, it's suitable to use this source since all of the criteria is met. Sure it's not third party or secondary, it's primary. But it's unambiguous of her nature. Tutelary (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That she is an equity feminist is not at all in dispute, and is already mentioned in the lead. I'm not entirely sure that reddit AMAs are a reasonable source for any article, let alone a WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. It's suitable for claims about their person, as long as those criteria are met. So what is in dispute then? I just saw you remove any mention of it. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

From the AMA: "I walked onto that ship a liberal feminist and came off- let me just say- confused". It's not clear how you are going to use that to support her being a feminist. As noted just above, her support of equity feminism is already in the lead. aprock (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving further from the first question, the first answer is I consider myself an equity feminist. An equity feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fairness, dignity, liberty, opportunity. Her 'support' of it =/= her actually being one imho. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As noted twice above, there is already a discussion of equity feminism in the lead. aprock (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so there is no confusion, "equity feminists" are "feminists" just as "TERFs" are "feminists". I am open to "feminist scholar" as her writings are widely cited in nearly all circles of feminism. The fact she criticizes U.S. feminists while such things as female circumcision is protected by law in other countries doesn't make her less of a feminist. In fact, many believe eradicating government backed sexism (i.e. slavery, prostitution, female circumcision and laws forbidding education) in third-world countries is more pressing than issues facing women in the U.S. Feminist ideology is diverse. --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have your own personal opinions on the matter. You're going to have to come up with an actual source if you want to support content for this article. aprock (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is the other way around, that you need to demonstrate that Sommers' feminism is not a form of feminism. You fully agree that she qualifies as an "equity feminist". It contains the word "feminist", the definition of equity feminism from it's origin in her book Whole Stole Feminism defines it as a form of feminism. Steven Pinker's, "The Blank Slate" defines it that way. Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it as feminism. The Natioal Women's Political Caucus -- a feminist organization co-founded by "Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Height, Myrlie Evers, several congresswomen, heads of national organizations, and others who shared the vision of gender equality including Dolores Delahanty of Kentucky and writer and journalist Letty Cottin Pogrebin" and who believe that "legal, economic and social equity would come about only when women were equally represented among the nation's political decision-makers." -- awarded her with a feminist writing award, and for asking "should we acknowledge the roots of feminism and strive for equal education for all". Even multiple Wikipedia articles list her as being a feminist and equity feminism as part of feminism. The evidence and sources are overwhelmingly strong, and far stronger than is typically required in a BLP, that she is a feminist and in support of feminism, but is critical of one form of feminism. Further, the rules for BLP are clearly aimed at neutrality where the current intro only identifies her as being in opposition to feminism. There is no balance with her being in support of feminism or being a feminist. At this point I think you need to provide sources to demonstrate why these are insufficient; otherwise it appears that you are simply using your own personal opinion. All of the criteria you have set have been met.

I have looked at recent changes to the article. I find many of them to be unhelpful and quite destructive, and I regret that there has been no discussion of most of them. It does not improve the article in any way to add the words "which she calls "victim feminization" " to the lead. That is simply bad writing, and I am going to remove it in the absence of any convincing argument for inclusion. Part of the lead has been altered, so that the words "Sommers labels herself an "equity feminist" who faults contemporary feminism for "its irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and statistics and its inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different"" have been replaced by, " Sommers supports "equity feminism", which "promotes fair treatment, respect and dignity for all woman."" That, too, is a clearly unhelpful change, and again I am going to remove it if no one can justify or defend it. Obviously, all feminists would say that they are in favor of those things, so that doesn't help the reader in any way or explain why Sommers's views are controversial. If anything, it amounts to trying to hide the controversy, which does a serious disservice to readers. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just come across these changes since last week and it looks like in the discussion there is a need for additional sources on Sommers as a feminist. In Steven Pinker's 2002 book, The Blank Slate, p.342 he includes her in a list of feminists. Specifically, the quote is, "Gender feminism's disdain for analytical rigor and classical liberal principles has recently been excoriated by equity feminists, among them ..., Christina Hoff Sommers, ...". Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University and he has been named Humanist of the Year, Prospect magazine’s “The World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals,” Foreign Policy’s “100 Global Thinkers,” and Time magazine’s “The 100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” I hope that is of sufficient quality. I looked to make the edit but it seems to be in lockdown. Dashing Leech (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Found this today http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript132.html : "But for the next half-hour we will hear a different idea from two prominent and controversial feminists: Camille Paglia and Christina Sommers." PBS strikes me as a trustworthy source, and the quote is from a transcript, that portion is voiced by Ben J. Wattenberg. Isofarro (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia

The article currently reads: "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes Sommers' "equity feminist" views as libertarian and socially conservative." While Sommers' works are cited in the encyclopedia, her views are not discussed. As her views are already well sourced and discussed in extensive detail in the following paragraph, this content is both redundant, and not properly sourced. I will remove it in due course. aprock (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the SEP, and you are obviously correct. I have removed some of that material myself; a case could be made for removing more. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

BS. Her works are her views. Her views are cited through her works. The citation style shows that. Did you note that the reference section was broken out by view? That is done only when the analysis is of the views of the authors. That's the "camps" method of attribution. It's splitting hairs otherwise and the Stanford piece does not do that. Do you go to the Einstein page and claim he disputed relativity because reviews of his work are only citations and not what he believed? We should start taking away Nobel prizes immediately if this this fallacy of attribution holds up. --DHeyward (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not "BS", it's the truth. Aprock is right. You obviously have no idea how to interpret sources or use them responsibly. You always need to be careful to avoid reading more into a source than is really there. The Stanford Encyclopedia does cite Sommers's books, but it does not discuss her views. It's absolutely crucial to make that distinction. It's just dumb to say that "the citation style shows" that it discusses her views. Everything in a BLP needs to be sourced as reliably and as cautiously as possible; by relying on arguments about the citation style of a source, you are showing that you are on weak ground. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please go down to the bibliography. You will see she is cited differently for works not putting the label "feminist". She is cited as "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist Works" for her works that are "feminist" and attributed as her work. She is cited as "Additional Sources" when it is of the type Aprock uses above. There is also a citation for "Liberal Feminism Works" where she is not cited. That is how "adherent" citation style works. There would be no reason to have four separate sections in the bibliography. Nor would they separate out her other works that were attributing a view to her. She coined the term "Equity feminist" and described herself with it in the book. Now, others describe themselves with it. A compromise is "feminist scholar" as she is undoubtedly one (google scholar lists her first book on feminism as being cited over 700 times). Wendy McElroy is also a feminist. If anything, surely you can that the Stanford piece citing her work where she says she is an equity feminist is at least reliable? --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you quoted the portion of the encyclopedia you think is relevant. As best I can tell, you're just performing editory WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not appropriate. aprock (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC) {Here:

Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist Works

Sommers, Christina Hoff (2007). “The Subjection of Islamic Women.” Weekly Standard Vol. 12, No. 34. [Available online] Sommers, Christina Hoff (2002). ‘The Case against Ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).’ Government Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, published by American Enterprise Institute. [Available online] ––– (2000). The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men. New York: Simon and Schuster. ––– (1994). Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Please note the attribution is to works by feminists, not works on feminism. There is a seperate section for works that are topical but not attributable to feminists. Stanford explicitly labels her a feminist. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You say that those are works by feminists, but the article does not make that claim. Please take care in being sure that you aren't reading more into the source than what is actually written. aprock (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What is ambiguous to you about "Feminist Works?" It is English. It's in the article. If it listed "Renaissance Painter Works" and listed a bunch of paintings, would you argue the painters themselves weren't Renaissance Painters? It's an absurd reading to deny the Stanford posit that she is a "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist" as they list her as such. In addition, she self-identifies as an "equity feminist" and a "democrat." I don't see the reasoning behind denying her any of that. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Are those works by feminists, or works about feminists? The encyclopedia isn't clear about this. As you say, she identifies herself as an equity feminist, and that is what is in the lead. aprock (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously "by feminists" as they break up the camps of feminists and also cite works that are "about feminists" is in the "other" section. There are four sections of citations (liberal feminists, other works about liberal feminists, libertarian feminists, other works about libertarian feminists). Note that Sommers has works in both the sections attributed "to libertarian feminists" and the "other" section. The author was careful to cite what was "by feminists" and "other." The fact Sommers is in both showa that the source meticulously identified whether it was the author or the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, you obviously just don't get it. We need to use the highest-quality sources in BLPs, and we need to use them as cautiously and as responsibly as possible. You are plain wrong in thinking that it is acceptable for the article to say something like, "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes Sommers' "equity feminist" views as libertarian and socially conservative". The fact is that it doesn't, and going on about citation styles isn't a valid response. You are trying to read something into the source that is not really there, and that is unacceptable. I suggest taking the issue to the BLP noticeboard. There experienced editors will tell you that you are wrong. Listen to them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

IW, Are you even reading the edits? I just add "feminist scholar" in the first sentence. Surely you are not so obtuse that being references in a 750+ scholarly sources on feminism and being identified as a feminist in a analytical piece and self-identifying as a feminist isn't enough to say she is a "feminist scholar" in the opening sentence? really? Do you consider the label negative? Why are you denying the reality of all the references, self identification and scholarly analysis. The "anti-feminist" label is very negative and not nearly as supportable as "feminist scholar." If you knew anything about BLP policy, it would move you to strike anti-feminist long before striking feminist scholar. --DHeyward (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I'm the editor that struck Sommers out of the Stanford line so it now reads ""The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes "equity feminist" views as libertarian and socially conservative." --DHeyward (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the source does not make the claim that she is a feminist scholar. That is your interpretation. aprock (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if the source had called equity feminism "conservative" the position of that sentence is highly suspect. As written, the article calls equity feminism convervative before it even explains the basic concept of equity feminism. I don't think that sentence is supported by the source at all; it seems like a fairly obvious attempt to discredit Sommers before the reader has a basic understand of what she is about. Even if it was sourced, it doesn't even make sense to use as the first sentence. We should state her views first, then talk about how others categorize them. 107.179.240.80 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommers does not 'make the case for moral conservation'

Regarding this sentence: "In an article for the textbook, Moral Soundings, Sommers makes the case for moral conservation and traditional values."

First, the sentence is repeated.

Second, it is not an accurate summary of what the source said. This sentence, is misrepresenting the source to make it seem like Sommers is some sort of pro-life bible thumper who promotes conservative political ideas (e.g. pro-life, anti-premarital-sex, pro-religion, etc).

The only relevant thing the source says is, "Christina Hoff Sommers, in chapter 17, seems to rely on such a view when she argues that contemporary students' lack of grounding our moral traditions inhibits their capacity for judgment."

This is not 'promoting traditional values'. It's just saying that knowing your history and the traditions of your people helps your judgment. It says nothing at all about traditional values and whether we should follow them - only that we should know them, so we know where we come from.

Sommers has a piece written earlier in the book, but if I'm not mistaken, we can't just summarize it because that would be original research? If that's what we're citing, we should link to it. And anyway, the same point would apply; she does not make a case for following traditional values - only for knowing them.

In conclusion, this sentence should be removed (both copies) as it does not reflect what the (extremely weak, one-sentence) source says.107.179.240.80 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this issue. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll remove this sentence. It does, indeed, seem to be a weak source for a view that she does not seem to have stated explicitly. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it Metamagician3000; if you review the discussion above, you will see that there is more questionable material that may need removing. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo

Minor point, but: in the first section of the Ideas and Views section, there is an unclosed quotation mark around the phrase "equity feminist." Can someone who can edit the page fix this please? (Page is currently protected or I'd fix this myself) Fyddlestix (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"att== First sentence ==

We have "equity feminist"in the lede but not the first sentence where it belongs as that is what she is most known for. "equity feminist", "feminist" or "feminist scholar" are all reasonable descriptions of what she is known for. There are sources for all three. Pick one. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to call Sommers a feminist, and you know that. Why do you care so much about this? It's a total irrelevance to me whether Sommers is called a feminist or not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's her most notable aspect and contribution that make her notable (750+ references in Google scholar to her first book, many secondary references to the term "equity femininst"). Why do people want to bury it? She is not known for anything but feminist works whether you agree or disagree with her style of feminism is beside the point. "feminist scholar" is adequate but her most notable accomplishment should be in the first sentence. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. Sommers is mainly notable because she wrote a book attacking one kind of feminism in the 1990s. The book and the attack are what make her notable, not her being a feminist, which is a debatable and rather uninteresting point. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Her book categorized types of feminists and she identified with a type. That type is notable today and referenced. Do you remove the "feminist" label from authors that attack "equity feminism" or do you only have a problem with equity feminists? --DHeyward (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no that's perfectly correct. She wrote a book attacking one kind of feminism, and that fact that it "categorized types of feminists" does not contradict that. You seem to have misunderstood my position; as I've said, I completely do not care whether Sommers is called a feminist or not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Attacked?" Really? What weapons did she use? You are objecting pretty mightily for someone that doesn't care. She characterized different versions. That's it. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Line 22

Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture.

should be reverted to

Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author, feminist, and former philosophy professor known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism, which she calls "victim feminization," in contemporary American culture.

The former casts her as an opponent of feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.148.111 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the article should not be reverted from one version to the other. Either version could be questioned. Discussion needs to take place first. In my opinion, the version the IP editor thinks the article should be reverted to is the result of rather inept and destructive editing. There is certainly no advantage to adding mumbo-jumbo like "victim feminization" to the lead; who knows what it's even supposed to mean? ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think everything in that sentence after 'professor' can go. The next sentences introduce her books and ideas sufficiently; we don't need to pack the same information in distorted form into the first sentence. Good writing is generally one idea per sentence. Casimirin (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur if "feminist", "equity feminist" or "feminist scholar" are in the first sentence. He main contribution is creating and identifying as an equity feminist. --DHeyward (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No, her main contribution was writing a book attacking one strain of feminism - the dominant strain at the time, and still possibly now. Most people probably have no idea what "equity feminist" is supposed to mean, so characterizing her as one without further qualification is not helpful. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree, though characterizing her writing as an attack is probably a bit heavy for the lead. But she is best known for her ideas about factionalizing feminism, and her support of the faction that is not traditional feminism. aprock (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a bit presumptuous for us to decide what is 'traditional' feminism. By the way Sommers and many others write, equity feminism is the traditional feminism of the 20th century, and the modern academic version is a sort of offshoot neo-feminism. I don't think we need to say that any form of feminism is more traditional or mainstream. Or at least, we can't without good sourcing, because going either way would be contentious. IMo the best approach here is to just say she's explicitly equity feminist, discuss what that means, and then perhaps talk about how others view equity feminism. Casimirin (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when discussing content for the article, we cite reliable sources. aprock (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I see significant problems in the use of "opposition" to feminism, and the reference to traditional feminism in the talk here. To cite a reliable source, Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", p. 342 lists Sommers as an equity feminist and p. 341 states "Equity feminism opposes sex discrimination and other forms of unfairness to women. It is part of the classical liberal and humanistic tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment, and it guided the first wave of feminism and launched the second wave." Pinker refers here to equity feminism as the traditional feminism, and (in the rest of the pages 341-342) gender feminism as the break from this tradition. At the same time he is pointing out Sommers' (and other equity feminists) support of, not opposition to, the goals of feminism in equality, fairness, and removal of discrimination. It seems to me incorrect to refer to her either opposing or critiquing modern feminism, but rather supporting the type of feminism that most people support (ref in a sec) and opposing a loud, but fringe movement of gender feminism. For ref, again from Pinker, p. 342, "It is not just gender feminism's collision with science that repels many feminists." and p. 341, "Feminists reply that proponents of women's rights do not speak with one voice, and that feminist thought comprises many positions, which have to be evaluated independently. That is completely legitimate, but it cuts both ways. To criticize a particular feminist proposal is not to attack feminism in general." Further, p. 343, "The difference between gender feminism and equity feminism accounts for the oft-reported paradox that most women do not consider themselves feminists (about 70 percent in 1997, up from about 60 percent a decade before), yet they agree with every major feminist position. The explanation is simple: the word “feminist” is often associated with gender feminism, but the positions in the polls are those of equity feminists." The poll he is citing is S. Boxer, "One casualty of the women's movement: Feminism," New York Times, 1997. And as above, Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University and he has been named Humanist of the Year, Prospect magazine’s “The World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals,” Foreign Policy’s “100 Global Thinkers,” and Time magazine’s “The 100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” I'm pretty sure this qualifies as sufficient quality reference. I suggest changing the reference from her opposition of modern feminism to being supportive of mainstream, traditional, classical, and liberal feminism (all supported by the reference here) while criticizing some modern forms of radical feminism. I looked to make the edit but it seems to be in lockdown. Dashing Leech (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, no a single voice proclaiming "All of you feminists and everything that has been called feminism re not actually feminists because of a poll where women dont identify as feminists" is a little out there. and while in his fields he is respected, his fields of expertise are are visual cognition and psycholinguistics, not feminism.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You have made a lot of backward and strawman arguments here. First, nowhere has Sommers, or I in the above comment, said "All of you feminists and everything that has been called feminism re not actually feminists because of a poll where women don't identify as feminists". In fact, that is what the edits here seem to be doing to Sommers, saying she, and the very numerous equity feminists (many listed by Pinker), are not feminists or supporters of feminism. She meets every criteria of being feminist and has written extensively about supporting feminism. Furthermore, as I directly referenced, "all that has been called feminism" includes first and second wave feminism, which were, and continue to be, the form of feminism referred to as equity feminism. Furthermore, your designation of Pinker's field as not being feminism is, itself, not a requirement of BLP, and you are pulling a "No True Scotsman". That is, you are defining a very narrow group of people as the only ones allowed to dictate who is called a feminist or not, and those people are the ones that Sommers criticizes. You are cherry-picking the answer here by defining feminism as only what modern radical feminists say it is, and only modern radical feminists get to decide who gets to be designated by that term. Sommers herself does work in feminism, as a feminist, and promotes feminism, and even that is declared here to be not good enough. This is all completely opposite to the intent and spirit of Wikipedia and the neutrality of BLP. Dashing Leech (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Despite their visibility, gender feminists do not speak for all feminists, let alone for all women."

Is this merely a lot of "No True Scotsman" being thrown about here ? The idea that there cannot be different branches or views that can all be described as feminism. I mean to give a rather relevant example can you only believe in Islam if you are a member of I.S.I.S or are plenty of people who believe in Islam objecting to I.S.I.S and their interpretation of an ideology. dwavenhobble (talk) 17:25 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not be doing any of this analysis. We should be finding those reliable sources who have discussed and analyzed Sommers and her work and summarizing them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And this is exactly what I've done above, but you dismissed. I found reliable sources who have discussed and analyzed Sommers and her work and summarized them. Pinker does exactly that over 3-4 pages. She received a 2013 Exceptional Merit in Media Awards (EMMAs) from the National Women's Political Caucus, a "multi-partisan grassroots organization in the United States dedicated to recruiting, training, and supporting women who seek elected and appointed offices" whose founders include "Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Height, Myrlie Evers, several congresswomen, heads of national organizations, and others who shared the vision of gender equality including Dolores Delahanty of Kentucky and writer and journalist Letty Cottin Pogrebin" and who believe that "legal, economic and social equity would come about only when women were equally represented among the nation's political decision-makers." The NWPC's description of her winning article even describes it as asking "should we acknowledge the roots of feminism and strive for equal education for all?". Even Gloria Steinem founded feminist organizations award her for feminism work, and this is insufficient to call her a feminist, or in support of feminism? I ask that you refrain from doing the exact analysis that you suggest others do not do. All posted criteria have been met. Dashing Leech (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

CHSommers disputing content of article.

Ms Sommers today tweeted "My Wikipedia profile has been attacked. Now full of errors and mischaracterizations. Who did this? What can I do?." With respect to WP:BLP, what is the procedure when the subject disputes the content? She is clearly not WP savvy so she would not be able to initiate on-site dispute resolution process. Maybe the regular editors could follow this up in the interest of WP:BLP. Thanks Jgm74 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to that. Unfortunately, since Sommers does not explain what she considers the errors and mischaracterizations to be, her comments are not very helpful. I suppose that's partly a limitation of Twitter. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

More than partly a limitation of twitter. But what is the most appropriate way for her to express her concerns? By what means, in what forum? She raised a concern. It behoves WP to acknowledge her concerns even if they are found to be of no issue. Jgm74 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommers should say clearly what she thinks the problem is. If she doesn't, there is nothing Wikipedia can really do about it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Other than raising it here, she should be encouraged to contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org. There are also some suggestions on how to proceed at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. We should always take the concerns raised by the subjects of articles seriously. Unfortunately, it is difficult in this case to know what the problems are - I'd like to help fix them, but other than the minor issues listed so far, I haven't seen anything in particular that we can act on. As you say, this is probably due to the limitations of Twitter, but maybe the email address will help. - Bilby (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby. That's all I was after. I forwarded the Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects to her so she has the option to raise specific issues if she so desires. Jgm74 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully she'll do that - Wikipedia is hard to navigate if you don't know the processes, but problems with biographies of living people are should always be looked into, as there is potential for real harm. I don't know if this will be something we can act on - at the moment I'm not sure of what the concern is, but I just may not be seeing the right things - but her concerns should be taken very seriously. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Her comments are VERY helpful. They have alerted you to a problem. Your comments insulting her contribution and dismissing them without spending any time analyzing using the DIFFERENCE tool is not very helpful. I suppose that's partly a limitation of how wiki amplifies a person's negative traits.208.53.122.13 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Her comments are vague and of very limited use. I have not insulted Sommers or anyone else, as you wrongly suggest, but you are insulting me. See WP:CIVIL. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I'm genuinely not trying to start drama. Bilby answered the questions. Thanks, I'm done. Jgm74 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's easy. Go to a version way before GG and watch it go negative. Watch how editors came here to tear it down. --DHeyward (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Equity feminism

The first line in the section "Ideas and Views claims that "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes equity feminism as libertarian and socially conservative." While the former is supported by the source supplied, the latter isn't. From the source section 2.2.3 Socially Conservative Equity Feminism,

"Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000). To be sure, equity feminism as described here is a form of classical-liberal or libertarian feminism."

This claims that **some** are socially conservative, not equity feminists in general. It even goes on to clarify that in the article that equity feminism is described as classical-liberal or libertarian. The sentence is misquoting the source. I suggest the following rewrite:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes equity feminism as classical-liberal or libertarian with some members being socially conservative.

SirArren (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence, as written, does not even seem to be about Sommers. It does not mention her by name. Why place it in this article? Also, please sign your posts. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

signed, sorry. I'm still getting around wiki. I don't know why it's in the article in the first place. And as is, it's misconstruing the source. SirArren (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since that material as it is currently written is not even about Sommers, it should simply be removed. An admin could do this, as they can edit through article protection. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She coined the term/invented it. Should we remove Einstein's general theory of relativity from his bio? We can add her name back but you've objected to every factual and neutral portrayal of her. Her socially conservative stance is not nearly as attributable than equity feminism. --DHeyward (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also The immediate following sentence is unsourced(where does she say there are acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism?) and then the sentence following that isn't supported by its source. On page 22 of "Who stole feminism?" http://books.google.com/books?id=EIUtJziqIqAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q=Enlightenment%20principles%20of%20individual%20justice&f=false

She says that 18th century feminists "grounded their demands in Enlightenment principles of justice." She does not describe equity feminism with this. Rather she describes the 18th century feminists with this description. She directly describes equity feminists in this line(on the same page)

"A First Wave, 'mainstream,' or 'equity' feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, without discrimination.

SirArren (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the acceptable/non-acceptable line should be removed. Your quote is also accurate and was in the lead prior to the addition of negative material (I added it but I believe it was reverted). --DHeyward (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of critics dispute Anita Sarkeesian as a feminist but nobody adds this on her page (as it shouldn't). Who could have ever approved of this? The classical definition of feminism is still a movement for female empowerment and equality of the genders. In which she fits in 100% fix this POV as soon as possible, wikipedia becomes worse and worse have you seen that according to wikipedia "white people" are a social construct and "black people" are an ethnicity? This kind of SJW insanity belongs on a personal blog not in an encyclopaedia. Helester (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All ethnicities are social constructs for your information. But neither being black or white is an ethnicity. They are racial categories. Being African-American or an Irish-American are ethnicities. And what you have heard wikipedia says is not what it actually says about those two things. When there is wide debate among feminists about Sommers status within the feminist movement then of course the article needs to note that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here. Its the unequal treatment of topics Sjws love and hate. C.H.S gets a whole lot of criticism, while all the criticism A.S received was "forgotten" and they only included it as "harassment". This is not based on facts its based on opinions and on unequal treatment of topics. Either we include it in both or in neither of them. In my opinion articles should be neutral and a lot of articles show the conservative opinion of the sjws instead of being neutral like they claim. Helester (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that, we cannot enforce "equal" treatment of articles. Who ever participates in writing a given article decides how it is to be covered - using the sources at hand. If Sarkeesian has been critiqued in reliable sources then that should be included. If reliable sources describe the "critique" as harrassment then it should be described that way in the article. But this article is about Sommers, who I dont believe has been involved in the Gamergate thing except maybe as a stooge paraded by one or more of the sides involved. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just try to get an equal wording on the "White People" and on the "Black People" page, I dare you to try it. I promise you you wont be able to. Same here, if the SJWs dog pile facts do not matter any more. Also you seem to forget that the media talks about the most interesting story's and not about the most truthful ones. C.H.S for example also received harassment but she deals differently with it which is the reason why the media cant write a "bawww" story about it, and they would if they were given the chance to. Does that mean she didn't get any? If a popular group of people would start doubting the status of an apple as a fruit although it full fills all category's would we include that some people doubt it? Helester (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition phrase in the articles White people and Black people are not identical, but they are completely equivalent in contents - describing both as social constructions with different social and political implications. There is not good reason they should be verbatim equivalent. If CHS "deals differently" with the harrassment she receives that is her choice, and will of course be reflected in the sources. Wikipedia articles reflect the sources. We have no requirement for or possibility of representing both sides in exactly the same ways. We have to represent them as the sources do. And yes if the consensus in reliable sources regarding the status of citrus fruits to other fruits started to shift then we would have to report that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Article concerns

Hi. My understanding is the Dr Sommers has expressed some concerns about this article (per the above), but hasn't yet been able to elaborate on what they are. I'm always concerned that Wikipedia makes it difficult for people who don't know the system to engage with editors, and that seems to be what has happened. However, I noticed that comparisons have been drawn between the current version of the article [3] and the version from July (pre GamerGate) [4]. In looking at the two, the content is quite similar - there has been a major reorganisation, but the leads of the two are mostly the same, and much of the content is still there. That said, in the July version there was a "Criticisms and controversy" section, almost all of which has been removed, but my feeling is that the old section suffered from being undue. Other than that, the main differences I can find are two lines which have since been removed:

• Author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a "libertarian." Sommers is also a registered Democrat.
• The War Against Boys was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year for 2000.

And from the lead, there has been a change from "... known for her critique of late 20th century feminism, and her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture" to "...known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture" which moves the focus from criticism and writing to just opposition.

Presuming that these are a concern, I don't see a problem with returning the statement that she is a registered Democrat. I've never understood US politics, but I'm assuming that it matters more than I would have expected from an Australian perspective. I also see no problems with the "notable book of the year" being raised, as it seems significant given the source. The sentence in the lead is a bit trickier, but I greatly prefer the "critique" wording over "opposition", (you can critique something without being in full opposition, so it would fit better with the equity feminist description), and it might be worth adding back a reference to her writings. In regard as to whether or not to describe her as a feminist in the lead I'm a bit indifferent - her official biography at AEI doesn't describe her as a feminist, (just as a former philosophy professor), but there are a lot of reasons why that might be the case. Perhaps describing her as an equity feminist in the first line would be a decent way forward, but that's a different issue.

My other main concern is with the description of "Who Stole Feminism" which starts with a criticism before explaining what the book is about. It should start with a summary, even if only a sentence or two, as per "The War Against Boys" section, and be more balanced in the discussion.

Any thoughts? I might be right off base with this, but given the concerns it seemed worth trying to look at what changes might help, even though we still probably need better context on the issues. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree with this. I think critique should be preferred to opposition in the lead. As the editor who removed much of incidental criticism, I agree with it being undue weight. My edit summary from the time: removing the rest of the controversy section per guidelines, these are isolated incident and appear to be cherry picked, much better source required by WP:BLP). You are also correct about needing a book summary at the head of the section. Describing her as an equity feminist seems quite appropriate, since she invented that term to differentiate herself from traditional feminism. aprock (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

While we defer to self identification for religion and sexual orientation, we do not defer to self identification via made up words for what a person is known for/their work classified as. We place her work and works as others have classified them, and if appropriate, state how the person positions themself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Her "made up word" is mainstream, survived over 20 years and her work that coined it is cited over 700 times in scholarly works. There are other libertarian feminists that also ascribe to equity feminist ideals. You need to get over the idea that it's made up or that it's anti-feminist. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The part about one author claiming that Sommers explicitly self-identifies as a libertarian was removed by me, per WP:UNDUE. It seems suspect, and I don't see a good reason to include that material in this article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It could be considered a BLP violation to insert a label of what somebody is, even if reliably sourced if they actively deny such a label. We shouldn't be labeling people anyways. She identifies as a feminist, and with BLP policy, we should defer to that label out of respect and dignity. For a source for her unambiguous self identification, check out the reddit link I posted earlier. (Confirmed on her Twitter feed to be her account.) WP:BLPSELFPUB should be appropriate. Tutelary (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "could" - if for example we blasted some random Joe Blow calling her a c-word. However, reflecting what the reliable sources say is NOT a BLP concern. BLP is not a whitewash.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're telling me that if someone disputes their label then that's not a BLP violation to consistently label them that? Got any precedent here? Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects ... Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, " ... Have you read BLP? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean where another article where a BLP has rejected a label but it was applied anyways. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If what we're talking about is people calling Sommers anti-feminist, then it is not a BLP violation for the article to say that people have called her that. It definitely is a violation for the article to present the "anti-feminist" claim in Wikipedia's voice, as though it were objective fact. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:BLP. The subject should be labelled how they identify. If that is disputed in source material then that should be included as criticism of the subjects identity. As a irregular editor I believe I can give an outsiders opinion here. It is unreasonable to label a subject as anything other than the label by which they self-identify. If after reading the sources you feel that the label is inappropriate, the you can criticise the application of the label. Ie. A feminist is a person who identifies as a feminist. Other feminists can disagree. The role of the source material is to report how someone self-identifies, and to support or criticise such label. But a source cannot determine a living subjects identity (political, philosophical, etc). On a contentious point of political identity one would want to attribute critical views in text. This is a big deal - certainly it'd be a big deal outside of WP. I apologise if I seem to be lecturing you. Jgm74 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is a Wikipedia encyclopedia article and NOT someone's homepage/free webhost. They can present themselves how they want on their own time and space, but here we present them as the sources present them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a homepage or an autobiography. However it is longstanding convention that people get to choose their political views. Others may criticise. So I see a problem with the third sentence. If CHS identiffies as an "Equity feminist" then this should be stated and sourced. If this identity is criticised (and I agree that it is) then that criticism should follow, the criticism outlined, and attributed. Eg. CHS identifies herself as a Democrat and an Equity Feminist. Various others (ABC) criticise her use of the feminist label because (DEF). We have differing opinions, and it is unlikely that we will find middle ground which is unfortunate. I'll flag this for an external opinion once I can make sense of the WP procedure for such. One last thing, I do take this seriously, and I am writing in good faith (a shame that that is necessary). Jgm74 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If Sommers identifies as an "equity feminist" and it is sourced, then yes, her self identification can (and should) be included, BUT her self identification should not be presented as THE SOLE identification if/when there are third party sources that ascribe different characteristics. And if the sources are solid and meaningful and consistently aligned in their interpretation, we place the value on the third party's interpretations rather than any self-promoting/ self-serving self-identification. WP:UNDUE AND WP:BLP which also specifically cautions against promotionalization of living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Red pen, are you seriously trying to claim that the BLP subject's own identification is [[[WP:UNDUE]] here? Or that it should be given last if at all? Tutelary (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont have access to enough academic files about Sommers to make such a conclusion about where she is placed and viewed, but the principle that "the subject gets to claim their identification" is a completely false premise on which to be proceeding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

She's provided such proof on an IAmA on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nqdqp/i_am_christina_hoff_sommers_author_of_who_stole/ (Verified through her Twitter) She identifies as an equity feminist unambiguously. And I dissent with you because ultimately, who are you to say they aren't a 'real' X or Y? Who defines a 'real' something? Sounds like No True Scotsman to me. Other sources can disagree, but what she identifies should absolutely be in the article. Tutelary (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe I ever said she has or has not identified as anything, I am saying that we privilege what third party reliable sources say over self promotional self identities. (but your source is Reddit????) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Are people really trying to make the case that Sommers' main philosophy is equity feminism, while she herself is not a feminist? You must see the contradiction here. The article on equity feminism correctly states that it is a kind of feminism. Given that, someone who believe is in equity feminism is a feminist by definition, the same way someone who believes in Orthodox Christianity is a Christian by definition. We should identify Sommers as feminist; it would be logically contradictory to do otherwise. (Sadly, at this point I'm pretty much expecting people to start attacking the equity feminism article on the grounds that it's not 'real' feminism because it only believes in straightforward equality of rights. Such is how ridiculous this has gotten after GG.) Casimirin (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, when did it become standard for Wikipedia editors to be the ones who decide whether or not someone is a feminist? Weedwacker (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We go by the third party sources, not self proclamations. If the third party sources regularly disagree with self proclamations, we go by the third parties and provide a "subject says they are X". That's policy. WP:UNDUE. Without specifically discussing sources, continuing this discussion is just a waste of pixels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We also have third party sources identifying her philosophy as equity feminism, which according to Wikipedia and its sources is a form of feminism. Are you going to go and try to get that changed as well? She is a feminist. --Eldritcher (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you specify which sources are you talking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition good enough? --Eldritcher (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

When it became inconvenient for their biased POV pushing. Q ^{T C} 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The bigger problem with the section about "Who Stole Feminism" is that it focuses on single statements and their criticism and rebuttals. The section should describe what the book is about. If the statements and theories are to be included, they should come after the description. The book has its own article so only the most important details should be included here. --Eldritcher (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2014 a

Per the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits, the caption in the info box should be "Hoff Sommers, circa 2009" or something similar, not a photo credit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, that looks weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And the image is suggested for deletion: [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2014 b

'Sommers coined the terms "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" to differentiate what she sees as acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism.' change to 'what she sees as constructive and unconstructive'-her sentiments are libertarian,it's not a value judgement or authoritarian pronouncement, it's an opinion, based on argument. Also in the lead- the critics' description of her as 'anti-feminist' should not come before a more neutral way of stating that. It could say for instance 'is a writer and speaker on the topic of feminism. Her critique of modern feminism has led some to call her an anti-feminist, but she describes herself as a 'Freedom Feminist.' ref= http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/18/saving-feminism -- SatansFeminist (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that wording could be improved on. It doesn't really meet the standards of an encyclopedia. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol, what mine or the current one? It was just a suggestion for people to put something of that nature. Implying a BLP subject considers some forms of an ideology acceptable vs unacceptable, is implying something about a BLP subject's character, for instance censoriousness, in a way 'constructive and unconstructive' does not. SatansFeminist (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear about it, I think that your wording could be improved. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest changing the line "Sommers labels herself an "equity feminist" who faults contemporary (third-wave) feminism for[...] " Additions in bold. If you read the cited article, that's what she's referring to (citing the 90s as the point of contention for her), and it'd be clearer/focused for those reading this page. This would also stop the is she/isn't she a feminist arguing, because she clearly is - she's just firm second wave. Even the title of her book 'who stole feminism?' is implicit evidence of that Metalmunki81 (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Sommers is a feminist who is critical of certain feminist views that first became prominent in academia in the late 1980's" (cite: Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.”) --DHeyward (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's appalling. I'm strongly opposed to adding that. What is "certain feminist views" supposed to mean? It's vague, it's pointless, and it's unhelpful. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Sommers is a feminist who is critical of views on feminism that arose in academia in the late 1980's" (cite: Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.”) --DHeyward (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to my point. Maybe you weren't trying to respond. Do you perhaps not even care whether the lead is useful or informative to readers? ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to mean second-wave feminism and/or radical feminism. But those really arose earlier. There are many branches that arose in the 1980s. If we're referring to a particular one, it needs to be specified. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

we are back to "what do the sources say?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's informative if we use the equity and gender feminist language. The whole point of the lead should be to introduce what she is mainly known for ("being an equity feminist") and what she critiques ("a form of feminism she identifies as gender feminism that arose in academia in the 1980's"). You don't have to agree with her point of view to describe it in the opening sentence. --DHeyward (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Article subjects typically don't get to self-define in the lead sentence. RS define them. WP:SPSSELF applies here. She can call herself a unicorn, but we ain't gonna put that in the lead description. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparing her views to a fictitious animal is not helpful. It's not as if the term is fictitious, unused by others or not in reliable sources. It is not a neologism. In fact, her work is cited over 700 times in scholarly journals. There are a number of feminists that are characterized as "equity feminists." It was coined 20 years ago and is notable today. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid counter-argument to overwhelming number of scholarly papers that cite the work that defines the term she is identified with and that she identifies with. Your position is akin to saying Albert Einstein shouldn't be identified as believing in general relativity even though he established it and a large number of papers cite his work. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Find the RS that call her a feminist. Again, we typically don't let people self-define. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple just based on a quick Google search:

In her book Sexual Correctness, Wendy McElroy refers to Sommers as "the liberal feminist Christina Hoff Sommers." (p. 10) A Vanity Fair article refers to Sommers as "feminist Christina Hoff Sommers."

No doubt more Google, or Google Scholar, searching could turn up more RSs. Memills (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Memills: Your edit here is most likely a violation of your MRM topic ban. Please do not edit here again if you wish to remain unblocked. Also, if you just google the phrase "feminist Christina Hoff Sommers" as you did, please don't leave out the fact that the majority of the search results use qualifiers such as "faux-feminist", "self-described feminist" or just quotation marks. You just proved my and other editors' point. I can also find ten to twenty RS stating that she is an anti-feminist for every source calling her a feminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

So the solution is to simply state that Sommers has been variously described as a feminist, an equity feminist, an anti-feminist, etc., and, that she refers to herself as an equity feminist. That would be the most accurate presentation. (And, by the way, please stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. That has been going on for far too long.) Memills (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The people who call her "faux-feminist" and "self-described equity feminist" or use quotation marks for her self-description "equity feminist" aren't actually calling her feminist. The obvious solution is to state Sommers' self-definition along with what the vast majority of reliable sources say about her. By the way, I notified an admin of your possible topic ban violation. I also suggest that you retract your false accusation that I am wikihounding you because it's patently obvious that I joined the discussion on this talk page long before you did. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Even critical pieces like the Washington Post review calls her an "equity feminist"[6]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please notice the quotation marks around "equity feminist". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was the seminal review of the book and the first time the term was used. It has lasted 20 years and scare quotes are no lonmger required and the seminal review would quote the inventing author. It's now mainstream. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Her book that coined the term is a reliable source and has been cited over 700 times. It's not self-published, it's published by Simon & Schuster which is a division of CBS. But even WP:SPSSELF in addition to WP:RS and there is nothing in WP:SPSSELF that restricts it either so it's valid under both. Name the violation you think is occuring. Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.” That's a reliable, published, and sourced describing the author (the source has been cited over 700 times according to google scholar) statement that also satisfies every requirement as WP:SPSSELF. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to underline DHeyward's point, if Sommers can't be considered a feminist on the above criteria, neither could Erin Pizzey who's been pretty vocal about what she saw as a hostile takeover of feminism in the late 70s. Not sure I'd like to know the person who thinks Erin Pizzey isn't a feminist! Metalmunki81 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a large body of literature describing how Pizzey is not a feminist but an anti-feminist? Otherwise it is not really comparable. One thing is claiming to be something, but when other members of the same group disputes the identification that is relevant, especially when they do it in a dozen reliably published books. The solution is to describe that she considers herself to be a feminist and that others consider her to be an anti-feminist. Both are clearly significant and notable views in the literature about her. But none of them should appear in wikipedia's voice. By the way the article on Pizzey no where describes her as a feminist, and it quotes her own statement that she has never been one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Please remove the image File:Christina Hoff Sommers.jpg from the infobox in enforcement of WP:NFCC. There is no evidence it is free, despite the claims of the uploader. Up for deletion at commons. CIreland (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Image is up for deletion on Wikimedia. I'd say wait for it to be deleted there before removing it here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you happy with that CIreland? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential third party sources

Here is a good source critiquing Hoff Sommers's views of ethics.

• Miller, Seumas (2010). The Moral Foundations of Social Institutions: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge University Press. pp. 184–. ISBN 9780521767941. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

A critique of Hoff Sommers critique of rape stats

• Raphael, Jody (2013). Rape is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis. Chicago Review Press. pp. 201–. ISBN 9781613744796. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

A critique of Hoff Sommers's general critiquing methods

• Superson, Anita M.; Cudd, Ann E. (2002-01-01). Theorizing Backlash: Philosophical Reflections on the Resistance to Feminism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 49–. ISBN 9780742513747. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts, TheRedPenOfDoom. It confuses matters not to sign them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:31, 26

November 2014 (UTC)

Also

• Rhonda Hammer. 2002. Antifeminism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is a BLP article

Seriously the POV-pushing WP:UNDUE needs to be taken out of the lead. The subject is rightfully really annoyed. She is a feminist, she's not anti-feminist.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS call her anti-feminist and the wiki article reflects that fact. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't see anything wrong with someone being anti-feminist, some people would regard being identified as anti-feminist as defamatory. That being the case, it is your responsibility to show that calling Sommers an anti-feminist is justified under WP:BLP. I think you'll find doing that only leads to trouble. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a misapplication of BLP. First, negative content is allowed if it's sourced well and the person is well-known enough. Second, it's not defamatory to be called antifeminist. While some people consider antifeminism misogynistic, we aren't calling her a misogynist (which would be defamatory if said in Wikipedia's voice). I can see an argument for the attribution of the use of "antifeminist", but frankly it is not a negative enough label to require such imho. Where the label "antifeminist" requires such attribution or is considered defamatory is more an issue for WP:BLPN (though there's already 2 conversations there about Sommers started by SatansFeminist). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't need a lecture on BLP. I am quite aware that it does allow negative content, and have pointed that out myself on occasion. If you understood BLP, you would realize that anything that is even potentially negative or controversial, which definitely does include "anti-feminist", needs the highest standard of sourcing. It may be acceptable to say that sources have called her anti-feminist, but saying that she is anti-feminist, in Wikipedia's voice, is never going to be acceptable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We differ on "potentially negative or controversial". Take it to BLPN if you're so concerned. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issue here is calling someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist and writes (well referenced) feminist works, an anti-feminist. Cyrenbyren (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please actually read BLP. It is not an issue to report what is widely reported. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I will quote it for you. Under "Challenged or likely to be challenged":

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.

Cyrenbyren (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While i thank you for quoting the policy, my next question is to ask why you think that is relevant? the article quite clearly cites the claims made and [7] there is no shortage of other academic sources that could be added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant because of the context it is presented. She clearly labels herself as an "equity feminist", and her work is mainly focused on feminism. Claiming that she is an anti-feminist in this context can be quite controversial for how she is viewed as an academic. As she is a well published academic with a large amount of references to her work, applying the aforementioned paragraph in the WP:BLP guidelines, requiring the use of inline quotes explicitly stating what is being said and by whom. This is not done here. Cyrenbyren (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If her work is viewed as antifeminist, then it is viewed as anti feminist and that is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia is not here to promote her personal perception, it is here to present the way it is viewed by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that perhaps there are different views among "mainstream academics"? Or is that too difficult a concept? ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

please demonstrate that the view "anti-feminist" is not one of (if not the) major view held by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the point is being challenged, which is why its a BLP issue. If you feel, and can find reliable references, that it is valuable to the article, cite those references inline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrenbyren (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you reading? the one i see DOES have inline cites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I am reading the current article. There are no inline quotes stating she is anti-feminist. Thr closest thing even relating to this is a a review of "The war against boys", and it does not even make that claim. The statement is in the lede, as well, and while the lede do not have the same requirements for quouts and references as the main article, I highly doubt that means it allows BLP violations. Cyrenbyren (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What statement(s) in the article identifying her work "antifeminist" is not sourced? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That Sommers is not "anti-feminist" is obviously the view of some sources that have discussed her work. See, for example, John M. Ellis's book Literature Lost, which is cited in the article on Who Stole Feminism?. It's just ignorant to claim that all reliable sources discussing Sommers call her anti-feminist. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations. I am not talking about references. Cyrenbyren (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's just ignorant to claim that all reliable sources discussing Sommers call her anti-feminist." Not all, but the vast majority. For every reliable source calling her feminist, there are at least ten reliable sources calling her anti-feminist. In academic sources the ratio is probably even more skewed in favor of antifeminist. And then there are also the sources that call her self-description into question without explicitly labeling her as anti-feminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. This is a BLP after all, so it's your responsibility to show that what you're saying is correct. Rather a lot has been published about Sommers, so I'm surprised that you would know exactly what proportion of sources discussing her call her a feminist and what proportion do not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let's go. Provide as many reliable sources as you can that call Sommers or her work feminist (not "antifeminist feminist", "faux-feminist", "self-described" "equity feminist" or "feminist" with quotation marks). And I'll provide reliable sources that call her or her work antifeminist or say that she opposes feminism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the right way to do it. Please collect as many quotes from reliably published sources that describe Sommers relation to Feminism as possible. That will make it so much easier to write a balanced and accurate article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It already started a few weeks ago: Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_3#"NPOV". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy-pasting quotes from RS regarding Sommers and feminism here so that the can be easily viewed and all in one place:

It seems clear from this so far that only Sommers refers to herself as a feminist. We have no RS calling her such. But there are a number of RS calling her anitfeminist. Does anyone have RS that call Sommers a feminist (without attributing the label to her own words)? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PS - I'll be happy to add to this list if someone has more to add. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Rhonda Hammer's book I mention above dedicates many pages to critiqyeing Sommers' claim to be a feminist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Katha Pollitt's status as a reliable source is questionable. She is described in her article primarily as a poet. How does she become an acceptable source for who is a feminist and who is not? It's not as though she were a political scientist or something. She happens, incidentally, to be one of the people criticized in Who Stole Feminism?, so using her book as source for describing Sommers as an anti-feminist is in effect taking sides in a dispute between two living people. Is this really what people want Wikipedia to do? ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is not going to describe Sommers as an antifeminist, it is going to say that she is described as that by many authors. Just as the article can describe Sommers statements about feminists, it can also describe their statements about her. Just for the sake of comparison, I also write on some BLPs for people on the political far right, sometimes a large amount of sources will talk about their associations with neo-nazis and describe them in unflattering terms, terms that the subject themselves reject. The articles nonetheless need to include them if the viewpoint is sufficiently predominant in the sources, as well as the biographic subject's own statements about their political affiliations. This article similarly will have to describe both Sommers' claim to be a feminist, as well as the claims of the many sources that says she is nota feminist in any meaningful sense of the word.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus: At what point to we speak in Wikipedia's voice when ascribing an extremely well-sourced but potentially negative label? This label is not defamatory. I don't think we need to attribute the label extensively if at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I generally wouldn't label people in wikipedia's voice if it is at all controversial. Some editors do it when there is a clear difference between "science POV" and "Fringe POV", but I dont think that is the best way to do it. In this case I think the relaiton is so compolex that that it is best to describe both views as views and attribute them. Personally I think the fun part is to try to make sure that the reader understands the way that the subject think, by describing their views and statements and in so far as possible without using labels to pigeonhole them. Of course their stanidng with in the field needs to come across though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a six new sources. I could probably go on for days. @EvergreenFir: By the way, why do you question the RS status of a book that was edited by a bunch of academics such as Lisa Sowle Cahill, Elaine Wainwright and Diego Irarrázaval and published by the small but academic publisher SCM Press? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• How did User:Bilby's edits add any "balance" in light of this and other discussions? "Some feminist scholars"? Some? And only feminist? Her approach has been received positively, sourced with an Economist piece that mentions her once and goes on praising the Independent Women's Forum? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I may well have stuffed up - I'm more than open to any corrections. Today, though, I went through about 20 papers and books discussing Sommers, selected randomly by going through the database hits on a general search. My impression was that (like always) the issue was complex - the views of Sommers and some of her contemporaries are accepted by some, strongly denied by others. There wasn't a consistent dialog in what I read, although there was no doubt that she was polarising. I felt that the previous single sentence in the lead wasn't adequately summarising this issue, given that her views on feminism are the main thing she is known for, so I wanted to add better context to the lead

Thus the changes I made were:

• Acknowledge that her views are controversial
• Provide a neutral description of her views before describing her as anti-feminist
• Note that her approach was accepted by some in the literature
• Use stronger sources for the "anti-feminist" description

I originally included a reference to the "pod feminism" which turned up an a few sources, but that seemed to unbalance the lead.

I have no problems with other approaches, but I think that the general pattern - describe her stance neutrally, and acknowledge both support and opposition - is probably one we should look to take. The previous wording started with the negative, and only used Sommers' own voice to present any positive. - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see three main problems with your edits:

• You wrote that some feminist scholars categorize her as anti-feminist, implying that only feminist scholars do so and that it's only some scholars. In reality, it's scholars in general or at the very least most scholars who consider her anti-feminist and this view isn't restricted to feminist scholars. I'm not aware of any academic sources that regard her as feminist. I assume that there must be some but they will most likely be in the minority. You're welcome to join the effort to collect quotes from RS regarding Sommers and feminism. So far it looks like all RS consider her anti-feminist.
• You stated that her approach (i.e., her "equity feminist" approach) has been positively received and added an Economist article as a source for the statement. The source mentions Sommers only once as part of a group of conservative women ("the pods") with a particular stance on "capitalism and American institutions", "individual rights, personal responsibility and equality before the law", group rights, vaginal orgasms, and men. The article then goes on to praise right-wing organizations like the Independent Women's Forum and state that "the pods" think that "women's organisations are so overwhelmingly left-wing that they have to be attacked from the right". If anything, then the article receives "the pods'" overall right-wing politics positively, not Sommers' approach to feminism. The sentence as it stands gives the wrong impression of what the source finds praiseworthy about Sommers' "approach", i.e., the sympathetic view of capitalism and America institutions, the rejection of the idea of group rights, ... and, last but not least, the attack on feminism from the right.
• The Sommers quotefarm and the quote from Camille Paglia in the lead section is bad form and, in the case of the Paglia quote, WP:Undue.

Can you link your general search? It would help to know what sort of search terms you used and what those 20 papers and books are. Also I don't share your perception that "The previous wording started with the negative, and only used Sommers' own voice to present any positive." The previous statement was that some critics consider her an antifeminist while Sommers labels herself an "equity feminist". Both "equity feminist" and "antifeminist" can be badges of honor or slights, it depends on whom you ask, but they're not positive or negative per se. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I used "some feminist scholars" because those describing Sommers were discussing her work in regard to feminism. I have no problems if there are others who also describe her as anti-feminist, but to be honest I think that has more weight coming from those who are experts in the field, rather than people who are not known for expertise in the area. In regard to the search, no, I can't link to it, but the terms were "Christina Sommers" & feminism. - Bilby (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What about the Economist source that doesn't support the statement that her "approach has, at times, been positively received"? Or what about the quotefarm in the lead that you started and that was expanded since then? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Paglia has been extensively referenced in regard to Sommers, and the particular quote was used in a secondary source when discussing Sommers, so from what I've been reading Paglia's opinion seemed worth including. That Paglia was being quoted elsewhere suggested that her comment on Sommers was being given some weight. The Economist was to include a non-academic viewpoint in regard to the approach, rather than specifically Sommers. From The Economist [8]:

"The pod feminists are led by writers and academics like Karen Lehrman, Anne Roiphe, Wendy Kaminer, Naomi Wolf, Camille Paglia, Cathy Young, Danielle Crittenden, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Katie Roiphe (daughter of Anne), Christine Hoff Sommers and Rene Denfeld"

"In sum, the pod feminists have attacked many of the totems of orthodox feminism. This has angered Ms Steinem, Ms Faludi and others, but it has also provided a breath of fresh air to a movement that was choking on its smug certainties. The establishment feminists are stuck with an angry, state-driven, quota-ridden 1960s mind-set that is looking dowdy."

I'm not particularly wedded to either statement being in the article. - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Where has Paglia been extensively referenced in regard to Sommers? Who quoted Paglia? And why quote Paglia and not Hammer, for example, who writes extensively about Sommers' work in Antifeminism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective? I'm still not sold on the Economist piece. The statement that you added says that Sommers' "equity feminist" approach has been received positively. But that's not what the sources shows. The source shows that the Economist believes that the "pod feminists" (including Sommers) attack on what the Economist believes to be "orthodox feminism" is great. It doesn't say anything about Sommers theoretical framework or approach to anything. It simply states that the "pod feminists" attack feminism from the right. So I suggest that the sentence be adjusted to better reflect to source ore removed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just in regard to Paglia, the reference I used was Gring‐Pemble, Lisa; Blair, Diane. (2000) "Best‐selling feminisms: The rhetorical production of popular press feminists' romantic quest", Communication Quarterly, 48:4, p362, which quoted Paglia in regard to Sommers. - Bilby (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26/11/14

In the lead, in the first sentence of the article, take out the phrase 'known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture.' then it will be a reasonable lead. The sentiment is duplicated in a more neutral way later in the lead so it's redundant and misleading overemphasis to put in the first sentence. Seriously we should be respectful of a living person's wishes and not smear them.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Living people often wish to have the Wikipedia article about them serve as an advertisement and hagiography. We are not here to grant wishes. Is there any evidence that the lead is not accurately portraying how the subject is viewed and covered by the reliably published sources? WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you are further besmirching a professional person by implying she would want an advert or hagiography, she just wants the article to not be painting her as something she isn't. She's said herself many times she's not anti-feminist. Further down in the lead it repeats this claim of critics and gives her response. A few critic's assessment of her shouldn't be the very first sentence of her article and imply that's all she's known for. When I was editing wikipedia several years ago we'd begun to be far more sensitive to how we depict BLP subjects.SatansFeminist (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@SatansFeminist: reliable sources call her anti-feminist, so it's mentioned in the article. It's also mentioned that she considers her self a feminist. There are no BLP issues here. Everything is properly sourced and due weight is given to both the article's subject and reliable sources. And she is indeed known for being anti-feminist in many circles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources also refute that she is anti-feminist. Her critics call her anti-feminist while others say she is critical of certain feminist ideas that grew in academia since the late 1980's. Her quote from 1994 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.” Her article here describes her feminist principles. I can see how some feminists may want to go further, but few would argue that what she has outlined is "anti-feminist." Reliable sources will have examples of views that they consider anti-feminist and not just a label. And if they have views, we can simply cite the views. Otherwise, the label needs to go.--DHeyward (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please show reliable sources that are not written by Sommers herself that refer to her as feminist? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In reliably published books I have found "post-feminist" and "anti-feminist" used to describe her. "post-feminist" seems to be more charitable, and kind of place here within a wider feminist camp. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't think post feminist can be called "feminist". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

She largely describes her self as a qualified feminist, most notably as an "equity feminist", a term she developed to distinguish her views on gender, sex, and society from that of more mainstream feminism. To call her a feminist in large part negates much of the effort she has put into promoting the distinctions that she's built her career upon. aprock (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And much more important, calling her a feminist negates the available reliable sources on the subject. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not put criticisms as fact +leave them without a response

Some criticisms by FAIR for instance the subject says are inaccurate, they should not be portrayed in the article as facts without clarification and her responses to the criticisms. http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/letters-to-the-editor-mayjune-1995/ SatansFeminist (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is already in the article. I think you're suggesting it be changed. While the article is under protection, you have to make concrete suggestions otherwise nothing will happen. aprock (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How about adding a link to the response instead of just a link to a page that contains the link to her reply to what FAIR said? 87.162.222.186 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

March of Dines study

it didn't exist.

'The March of Dimes never did any such study, nor did it commission any such research. The source Lemon cites is a 1987 article in the nursing journal Birth by two authors who were awarded a grant by the March of Dimes to do a small study of battery during pregnancy and to summarize strategies for prevention. In their introductory remarks describing the scope of the problem, the authors refer to a 1981 monograph by Evan Stark, Anne Flitcraft, et al., titled Domestic Violence. It makes claims about the links between battery and miscarriages, and it was not connected with the March of Dimes in any way. When students are told in Lemon's book that "the March of Dimes found …," they are led to believe that this reputable organization carried out the major study with the advertised finding. They do not assume that the finding was by a third party, which was then referred to by someone who received a grant from the March of Dimes to do a small study on a different topic.' http://chronicle.com/article/Domestic-Violence-a/47940/ SatansFeminist (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's already in the article. aprock (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. You have to ACTUALLY mention that she replied and provide a direct link to that reply. 87.162.222.186 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We give her original claim, and Lemon's response, but we do not currently include the response to that response, which is further down at the link given above. Our article gives the impression that the matter can be easily and conclusively settled in favor of Lemon but that is not what the source says.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Concur. There is a discussion in the Chronicle article that seems to make the Lemon's claims a bit far-fetched. For example Romulus having the first anti-domestic violence law. That, on its face seems to put Lemon at the fringe at least from a historical perspective as she argues it as historical fact when Romulus is oft regarded as mythical. Our article labels Romulus as part of the Rome's foundation myth. Romanticism (interesting etymology of that word) reinterpretations seemed to have occurred to give truthiness to some stories but the foundation is very weak for us to cite considering how the topic is treated by scholars (myth). Lemon's arguments on English common law "Rule of thumb" are also dismissed in our Rule of thumb article with well-sourced references as well as the seminal misinterpretation by others of a statement by feminist Del Martin who used it as a metaphor, not as historical fact. The "March of Dimes study" claim also seems to be a reach as the report being cited doesn't appear to be supported by the March of Dimes. Researchers often receive multiple grants from multiple places so even though two authors may publish multiple studies together, it is not accurate to say all studies are funded as if it where a pool. Sommer's rebuttal seems to be much more accurate with sources to back it up. This all needs to be cleaned up as the BLP shouldn't be the place to leave innuendo or criticism when the main articles on the same topic are much more clear cut. --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: "the response to that response..." Such back-and-forth dialogue between Sommers and her critics is discouraged per WP:STRUCTURE. Sommers' response to that response, and then a response to Sommers' response to the original response, and so it goes ad infinitum. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm no, all Jimbo, who founded wikipedia is saying is that if you put someone's claim Sommers got something wrong then you need to put a response from the subject, or we're implying the criticism is an incontrovertible fact when it's not.SatansFeminist (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree with Sonicyouth86. Honestly, discussion of her views on the March of Dimes research paper is unwarranted per WP:UNDUE. This is not something she is known for, and descending into an endless he-said/she-said over what looks to be some fuzzy sourcing really doesn't belong on her bio. aprock (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear that there is a March of Dimes study. It's very clear that Lemon's criticism is lacking accuracy according to the other aspects she brings up including "Romulus" and "Rule of thumb." Both of our Wikipedia articles on those topics directly dispute Lemon's assertions with citations. Sommers disputes those items and the "March of Dimes" claim with equal rigor. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While she disputes it in her book, that is not what the book is known for. That level of detail may be appropriate in the book article, but here is comes across as trivial bickering between pundits. Not really appropriate here. aprock (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Please show the the consensus for this removal of sourced content? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Three people above weighed in about how just Lemon's rebuttal was a BLP violation as being incomplete at best. At worst, everything posited by Lemon was disputed by reliable sources. Lemon should be removed completely. The only question would be whether to mention Sommers' "March of Dimes" observation. As it stood, Lemon was mischaracterized as critiqing Sommers book (she was actually replying to a different piece) and it was stated as an unrebutted fact when that also was not the case. Our own unrelated articles refute Lemon's arguments. Lemon is not reliable and it was an obvious call to remove it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014

@Bbb23: or other admin, can you please add the page protection template to the article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added pp-dispute. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014b

Ms Sommers replied to criticism by FAIR. I think her reply should be mentioned in Who Stole Feminism paragraph and article. Matthew1J (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please phrase your request as a "Change X to y" or "Add Z to section S" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for kind reply. Please add "Sommers has responded to this criticism." at the end of Who Stole Feminism paragraph. English isn't my first language so feel free to correct my possible errors and typos. Matthew1J (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014c

The War Against Boys was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year for 2000.

This sentence was already included, and was removed by this HEAVILY biased edit [9] without any sort of consensus and frankly unexplainable. This has even been noted by Sommers herself Loganmac (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

I think you'll need to find a reliable source for this. I don't think an online retailer qualifies. aprock (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I've found The New York Times itself as a source [10] Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

At this stage I'm inclined to wait until the page is unprotected to make these sorts of content edits, unless there's a strong consensus to add them now. - Bilby (talk)

My point was that there was no consensus to take it back neither, I checked on this article like a month ago and it was fine now I see it got striped of alot of stuff, and it's protected Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Me too Loganmac, a month ago the page was ok, now all this snipey POV got put in etc. Funny how people think content which isn't slating her work shouldn't be added, but slating her is fine.SatansFeminist (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally inclined to make some mention of this, at least when the protection expries, but I was looking at the NYT source and it doesn't seem overly significant, in that there are over 150 books in the list, and the review it links to wasn't particularly positive. Do we know how important being on that list was? I have no hassles with mentioning it, but I'm not sure how much weight to give it when we do. - Bilby (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

i think the context would be important : "it was named as one of the150 notable works of the year"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice tendetious proposal RedPen, it should be just like it was written before, if people want to follow the link and find that 150 books is too much (do we have any idea how much books get released in a year?) let them Loganmac (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

so context is tendetious . interesting perspective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014d

Remove line "Scholar Nancy K.D. Lemon, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, rebutted this claim, noting that the study "Battering During Pregnancy: Intervention Strategies," by Anne Stewart Helton and Frances Gobble Snodgrass, funded by a grant by March of Dimes, appears in the September 1987 issue of the journal Birth.[20]"

Per discussion above, Sommers rebutted Lemon's criticism but it's argued the rebuttal would be UNDUE. Lemon's criticim is quite flimsy and doesn't stand scrutiny against our other articles, let alone a BLP. Without the rebuttal, it's a BLP issue per Jimbo. With the rebuttal it's UNDUE per Aprock. Therefore it's best to remove it completely since it's a BLP violation right now. --DHeyward (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll just note that I was suggesting removing the entire topic, not just the rebuttals. That is, removing

Sommers writes in Who Stole Feminism that an often-mentioned March of Dimes study which says that "domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects," does not exist.

as well. aprock (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, re-reading that section, it is an utter mess. Once the article is unprotected a proper summary of the book should be added, along with reviews nad reception. aprock (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Who Stole Feminism? has its own article. Some content that might not be suitable for this article could be moved there. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 November 2014

Add Category:American academics and re-add Category:American women writers to the categories section. According to what I am reading, Sommers is both a former professor and is currently a scholar. In addition, she is a writer according to the sources and the categories on this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

she is definitely an author, but she currently works at a think tank- do we consider them "academics"? they are generally more pundits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

She also still writes books to an academic standard independently, speaks at universities in a personal capacity, plus AEI is a broader church than people give it credit for.SatansFeminist (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

lots of people speak at universities - that doesnt make them "academics". and no matter how "broad" a think tank is, its not "academia" - in fact the most broad think tanks are little more than propaganda machines and marketing firms. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A professor, even one who is "former", is still an "academic". Weedwacker (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree Loganmac (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question - Do RS call her an academic? If so, then yes, add the cat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: RS call her at least professor. Why would you have to look for literal use of "academic"? Doesn't professorship qualify person as academic? Matthew1J (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matthew1J: That's a tough one... professor usually means they are in academia, but some people use it instead of "doctor". Honestly not sure on this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I think this recent edit by Dashing Leech adds too much material to the lead. That kind of material should be placed somewhere else in the article, if it is to be in the article at all. The reference to Camille Paglia could also usefully be removed from the lead. The lead at present is a mess, and needs to be scaled back. It shouldn't read as a collection of random opinions by all and sundry. Edits like this, which added a long-winded and unnecessary quotation, are frankly inept. The lead should what DHeyward calls "vague." It is only a summary of the basic points, not a place to stuff one's favorite quotations, whether positive or negative. DHeyward's inept and destructive edit should be reverted. ImprovingWiki (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "inept" are the lead you left with a reading of "Sommers' views on feminism have attracted controversy. Her approach has, at times, been positively received. However, it has also been criticized, and she has been categorized as anti-feminist by some feminist scholars." after a bunch of misguided ans misapplied quotes. This[11] was an awful lead of word salad and absolutely no content. You really think "has, at times, been positive" juxtaposed with "she has been categorized as anti-feminist" is anything close to acceptable, NPOV and BLP material? Get a grip. That was garbage and I removed it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit by Maunus also appears biased and should also be reverted. I believe it is questionable under BLP, and I think Maunus should know better. His edit summary "accuracy" implies that it is somehow inaccurate to say that Sommers has been called anti-feminist by some feminist scholars, which is nonsense. Changing "has been called" to "is considered" promotes the POV of Sommers's critics. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. More than a dozen sources describing her as antifeminist is more than enough to warrant "many", indeed even saying "most" would be warranted as well since we have yet to see a single feminist author calling her a feminist, and using "some" is tantamount to lying to the reader. Cherry picking a nice quote from Pinker is of course also questionable, and generally quotes should be avoided in the lead (which is a summary of the article) unless they are of extrmely significance to the topic. Since there is a large body of literature criticizing Sommers work, and that work is summarized in the body of the text per WP:LEAD it also needs to have due weight in the introduction. You have a badly distorted idea of how WP:BLP works. It does not mean that all articles about living persons have to be hagiographies based on excluding all critical literature. You should probably read our NPOV policy to get out of this misunderstanding.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You might have noticed that I did not object to the "many" part. I agree that it is quite accurate. If you agree with me that placing the Pinker quote in the lead is wrong, you ought to remove it straight away. Getting rid of it would definitely be an improvement. However, I'm afraid it is you, not me, who has a distorted understanding of BLP. Your pompous reply does not suggest to me that you have the least understanding of my objection to your edit, and simply ignores the substance of what I said. Your edit is a biased bit of rubbish, a not-so-subtle way of trying to discredit Sommers and promote the ideology of Sommers's critics. I will be reverting it soon enough. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as you have consensus on your side for any changes you make there should be no problem. Describing a point of view and promoting it is not the same.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You again ignore the substance of my objection. You used the edit summary "accuracy". That implies that the other version was somehow inaccurate. It is not inaccurate to say that Sommers's critics have called her work anti-feminist. That's a factually correct statement, and a neutral way of explaining the issue, since it makes it clear that the opinion of the critics is opinion. Saying that her work is considered anti-feminist amounts to suggesting that the opinion in question is fact. You should know better than to think that acceptable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are quarreling over an edit summary then. Which is frankly stupid. In anycase it IS inaccurate to use the phrase "some" when by all accounts it is a majority of feminist scholars who share this view. Saying that something is "considered" is not tantamount to suggesting it is a fact, "consider" means approximately the same as "believe that something is X". Saying "has called" is inaccurate because it is not about their statement, but about their view. They dont use "antifeminist" as an ad hoc slur but as a coherent critique of her viewpoint shared by a large group of feminist scholars. Saying "has been called" reduces this viewpoint to a matter of labeling and namecalling. That is inaccurate in the extreme.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

ImprovingWiki, you had absolutely no consensus for this change. You know that the vast majority (so far all) of reliable sources describe her as antifeminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article has publicly complained about the changes I reverted in that edit, and I happen to think her concerns are reasonable. You didn't have consensus either, so your complaint is hypocritical. I'm not moved by vague and unsubstantiated claims about reliable sources. What you are saying looks like a rationale for slanting this article against its subject, and isn't in accord with the intent of BLP. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

To reply to Maunus: well, maybe it was your edit summary that was stupid in the first place. Shouldn't edit summaries themselves be accurate? I think so. I already told you that I did not object to the change of some to many. How disingenuous of you to deny that the effect of your edit is to promote the views of Sommers's critics. Saying that her critics "consider" something to be true does imply it is true if they are identified as scholars. There would be no reason to make such a change otherwise. I don't happen to consider the abuse of Sommers by her critics a "coherent critique" (a very pretentious term for what they've done). It's just name calling, and it's laughable to suggest otherwise. However, this isn't a debate forum and I won't discuss that any further. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article hasn't complained about anything specific. More important, articles are based on reliable sources. If Rush Limbaugh starts calling himself liberal tomorrow, we'll still call him conservative. Why? Because that's how the vast majority of sources describe him. You were given many reliable sources categorizing Sommers as antifeminist. That is the majority opinion. Where are your sources? You were asked yesterday to provide some. Also please read up on WP:Consensus, it appears that you haven't quite gotten the gist of it yet. Since you are the one making the change, you are the one in need of consensus. I simply restored a stable version. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes she has, and you would know that if you had been paying proper attention. As I said, you should look carefully at her twitter page. You say that the "vast majority of sources" call her an anti-feminist. How would you know? Given the size of what has been written about Sommers, over the course of some two decades since her book on feminism made her famous, it's totally unclear how you could know that to be true. In any case, your assertions about "the vast majority of sources" are not even relevant to the edit you made. The question is not whether it reflects "the vast majority of sources" but whether it accurately reflects the particular source used in that particular passage - a question you do not address. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But people's Twitter posts isn't how we write articles here in Wikipedia. We use reliable sources. I err on the side of caution when I say "vast majority of reliable sources". So far it looks like all reliable sources consider Sommers an antifeminist, see the list of source here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an ugly and stupid statement. If someone publicly complains about their Wikipedia profile, Wikipedia and its editors need to pay attention to that, if they want Wikipedia to be considered in any way ethical. I was not suggesting using Twitter as a source, and you are confusing the issue deliberately by suggesting I was. Sommers objected specifically to this edit, which is why I removed some of the changes it made. Your comment about what "all reliable sources" show "so far" is wrong, as I already mentioned a reliable source - a book by John M. Ellis that does not take the "Sommers is an anti-feminist" line. It is also irrelevant, since, as I explained to you, the issue is not what most sources show but what the specific sources being used as a statement in the lead show. You failed to show that your preferred version was in any way a more accurate reflection of the particular source used. I'm going to take this to ANI shortly, because your behavior here, and that of other editors such as Maunus, has been grossly irresponsible. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please show me where Sommers specifically objected to the linked edit and please show me the content policy that says that we must disregard reliable sources and instead go by what someone wants included in their BLP. I see a misunderstanding of our content policies so profound that I welcome your intention to take this to AN/I. If you don't, then I will. It's troubling that you believe that it suffices if someone calls themselves XYZ. It's also troubling that you came back from a 5 year break to start these weird discussions about feminism, like the one on the Sigmund Freud page. So let's discuss this at AN/I with input from uninvolved editors. Besides, the Ellis book doesn't contradict the other reliable sources that call Sommers antifeminist. Ellis doesn't state if he considers her feminist or antifeminist or something else. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Jumping in here regarding the current lead. The "antifeminist" part needs to be earlier. Much of her reputation is for being antifeminist. Also I would say that it's not just feminists who call her that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, do I really have to do your homework for you? See Sommers's twitter page. See her post of November 26, titled "we heart games", in which she objects to this particular edit. Are you actually unable to find twitter? Her twitter page is here. I never suggested that we "disregard reliable sources"; that's your spin on matters. I suggested that we take seriously our ethical obligations as editors and at least consider what the subject of the article says about it. It is simply unacceptable not to do this. Again, it's not even relevant, for the purposes of the content of the edit that Sommers objected to, what "most sources" say. It's only relevant what the particular source used says. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But you did suggest that we disregard reliable sources when you tried to add the feminist label repeatedly [12][13][14][15][16], arguing that it suffices if she calls herself that (which by the way she doesn't). Where is the content policy that says that we must ignore RS if Sommers objects to parts of the article? There is no source (and no consensus) for your change, so what are you talking about when you say "the particular source"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What a waste of talk page space. I changed my mind about that issue quite some time ago. I actually don't care whether the article calls Sommers a feminist or not. I don't necessarily agree with the argument for not calling her a feminist, but I do understand it and can see where those making it are coming from. I'm also perfectly happy for the article to mention that some people have called Sommers an anti-feminist so long as that is clearly presented as opinion and not as fact. So that's not an issue either. As for what I mean by "the particular source", what on Earth do you think I mean? Look at the edit, and look at the source used. There is a source. It is her book Who Stole Feminism?, a book which does not support the statements that I reverted, which were simply some editor's opinions. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But you do care whether the article calls Sommers antifeminist or not. That is why you changed the stable lead without consensus. You mean that in her book Sommers says that she is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism? Which page? Sommers herself may not support the statement that she is known for her opposition to feminism but reliable secondary sources do. Surely you can see that contradiction between you claim that you don't insist on disregarding RS and your demand that we rely on Sommers instead of RS when it comes to what she's know for. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead was not stable. The change Sommers objects to was made very recently and is clearly still controversial. You have no consensus for your view either so your complaint, now as before, is hypocritical. The book does not actually support either description of Sommers, which is the problem. You seem to be confusing having a bunch of sources (some of them - like Pollitt - dubious sources) calling Sommers an anti-feminist with having sources that say Sommers is known for her opposition to feminism in American culture. It's illegitimate use of sources to jump from the one claim to the other, as they're clearly distinct. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead that says that Sommers is opposed to feminism isn't controversial because it reflects the RS. Read WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Your re-revert without prior discussion was a clear violation of the BRD cycle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have sources calling someone an anti-feminist, then those sources can be legitimately used to say that people have called that person an anti-feminist, and that is all. You cannot use them to say that the person is an anti-feminist, and there is absolutely no legitimate encyclopedic purpose for doing that anyway. Similarly, one cannot take sources that call someone an anti-feminist and use that to back up the statement that they are known for their opposition to feminism, which is a different claim entirely. Read WP:BLP, among other policies. Your actions violate its intent, and probably its letter. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Sommers does not get to dictate the content of this article. We reflect sources and they call her antifeminist. We can give attribution to the label, but frankly don't need to. She is indeed known for her antifeminism per the sources listed above. She can call herself whatever she wants and we'll include it. But it won't be the focus of the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommer's does not oppose 20th Century feminism, rather she is critical of certain radical schools that came to power in academia in the 1980s. She has always been a feminist. She states this clearly in her first book, "Who Stole Feminism" (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.” The entire book is a plea for a return to a "common sense, reality-based feminism." Her latest book "Freedom Feminism" (2013) is a manifesto for equity feminism. The themes of the book are described in her 2013 article in the Atlantic “How to Get More Women (and men) to call themselves feminists.” It is okay to note her critics. It is not okay to let her critics define her when it is clearly disputed, and negative and lacking impartiality. Her critics opinions are not more valid than hers or her supporters. --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Her critics are RS. We go by secondary sources, not primary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Critics like Lemon are not reliable sources. Named and specific criticism by reliable sources are okay. there are plenty of secondary sources that validate equity feminists as feminists. It is not okay to dismiss positive just because you don't like it. There is no "club" with a registrar and member list for feminists. They come in all shapes and sizes. The broad brush of exclusion is pathetically crude doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's TERF-like in that TERF broad brush exclusion is just as invalid. --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)