Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Lead

Binksternet, I do suggest you stop edit warring over the lead of this article. You should be familiar with WP:BRD, don't act as though you aren't. You are trying to make two changes at once here. I think one of them may be acceptable; the other is not. The possibly acceptable change is altering "some" to "most" - you could be correct about that. The unacceptable changing is removing Sommers's self-description of her own views and positions. To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have a rule such as "What someone says about their own views or opinions on Twitter must never be mentioned in the lead of their article" - and it would make for a pretty ridiculous rule if it did. Maybe you think that Sommers's description of her own views shouldn't be mentioned because in your opinion it is fringe. For purposes of comparison, the article on David Duke states that, "Duke describes himself as a racial realist, asserting that 'all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage'." If David Duke is allowed to have his self-description of himself mentioned in his article (and I'm pretty sure it is not the mainstream view of him), why is Christina Hoff Sommers to be denied the privilege? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't see the reason to be citing a tweet in the lede for such a pointless thing 'no I'm not'. Find something better. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, Peter. David Duke's tweets should also be removed if they are given as a rebuttal to reliable publications by respected authors.

Sommers should be able to get her side of the story in print, somewhere. Let's find that and put the resulting back-and-forth into its own section in the body of the article rather than inserting this stuff into the lead. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth's comment shows a lack of understanding of BLP (or a lack of interest?). If Sommers considers herself a feminist, and someone insists on defaming her by calling her anti-feminist, then for her to reply that she does not consider herself an anti-feminist is hardly pointless. It is a rational act of self-defense in the face of an ideologically driven attack. If, PeterTheFourth, someone were to defame you by calling you an opponent of something that you support, would it be equally "pointless" of you to protest that your critic is incorrect? There is absolutely no reason why Sommers's view that she is a feminist should not be mentioned in the lead, and trying to exclude it is a blatant example of biased editing. I note again that Binksternet made two changes to the lead, and has so far attempted to defend only one of them. Is there actually a source stating that most feminists consider Sommers anti-feminist? If not, that's a BLP violation, and must be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think somebody citing my tweets for anything would be pretty pointless. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If anything is pointless, it is immature comments such as the one above. It does not even reflect what I wrote correctly. I asked whether you responding to someone who defamed you would be pointless. You were the one who brought twitter into it, not me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?) is a fantastic essay on deletion discussions; serving to focus such discussions on the merits of the individual article being considered.
It is not; is not intended as; and should not be used as; a refutation of valid arguments that we should be consistent in our approach to other aspects of the Wikipedia Project, and therefore eschew hypocrisy.
A consistent approach is the underpinning of our content policies & guidelines; is the foundation of the WikiProjects and WP:MOS; and is vital to producing a quality encyclopedia.
See also essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have gone through two of the three sources in the lead that support the statement about feminist scholars calling Sommers anti-feminist. The sources do indeed call Sommers anti-feminist, but neither states that most feminist scholars consider Sommers anti-feminist (the claim that most feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist of course could hardly be proven in reality - did anyone do an opinion survey of feminist scholars to find out what most of them think of Sommers?). The change of "some" to "most" seems to be original research on the part of Binksternet, and as such likely a serious violation of WP:BLP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Binksternet, you are going to have to stop changing "some" to "most" without evidence the change is correct. Simply put, content in BLPs needs to be carefully sourced, and "most" is unacceptable unless there is a source directly supporting it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias summarize the existing literature. The word "most" is a summary of all the mentions of Sommers that were written by feminist scholars. We could source exactly how many known feminist scholars have called her antifeminist, and then cite them all, or we could summarize what is generally true, in fact quite well known in the field, thus being a sky-is-blue statement, a statement not needing a reference.

Note that "some feminist scholars" is not sourced, either. I would be happy with telling the reader that "feminist scholars" describe Sommers as antifeminist, absent of any attempt to assess what kind of majority. Binksternet (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy called WP:BLP, which requires that articles on living people be sourced carefully, so "not needing a reference" doesn't cut it. Wikipedia also has a policy called WP:NOR, which essentially means "don't make stuff up", which is what you are doing. If you have three sources calling Sommers anti-feminist, then one can reasonably say that "some" critics have called Sommers anti-feminist, but one cannot reasonably say that "most" feminist scholars call Sommers anti-feminist. How would you, or anyone, know that those three particular feminists speak for all or most feminists? WP:NOR exists precisely to prevent editors jumping beyond the sources that way, which you euphemistically refer to as "summarize[ing] the existing literature". "Feminist scholars describe Sommers as antifeminist" also is clearly biased, as it ignores feminist scholars who may have a different opinion (Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge would be examples). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got Patai and Koertge going against the mass of feminist scholarship. Those two don't even constitute a minority opinion against the dozens of other scholars who say Sommers is antifeminist. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Patai and Koertge are only examples. If you are asserting that they are the only scholars who support Sommers, then that's disingenuous, to put it mildly. Besides that, your comment doesn't in any way respond to my objection to your edit: you are engaged in original research by stating that most feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist when you have no source actually stating as much. WP:NOR is clear that's unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Binksternet: One of the problems that you run into (and it would take quite some time to check) is that by using the specific words "most" and "antifeminist" you are obliged to show that a substantial majority of ALL feminists, or, at least, ALL feminists who have ever commented on Sommers, have described her specifically as an antifeminist. Some, for instance, might have said that her ideas are not those of a true feminist, but that isn't the same as calling someone an antifeminist. I would suggest that we use wording that is easily demonstrable. Motsebboh (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

How about "Of those feminist scholars who have engaged with CHS's works and positions, most have called her an anti-feminist"? Of course this raises the next 17 problems, but at least it goes some way to break the present deadlock.

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The 'deadlock' has been caused by Binksternet's insistence on trying to justify original research. The solution would be for him to respect WP:NOR, and include in the article only what reliable sources can really justify (thus excluding the statement about what "most" feminist scholars claim). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• The underlying issue is that "most" requires a level of original research which is not permitted by WP:NOR & WP:BLP, in that it is a WP:SYNTHesis of sources producing a conclusion not stated by any of those sources. WP:SYNTH - Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.; WP:BLP - ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, ...; WP:BLPREMOVE - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1. is unsourced or poorly sourced; 2. is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research). I am of the opinion that an absence of a qualifier also requires the same synthesis, as is implies the same conclusion.
  On the assumption that the list of feminist scholars provided by Binksternet previously (linked above) is correct (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), and that "anti-feminist" is a fair & accurate summary of the union (not intersection) of those sources (which I again have no reason to doubt), could we find compromise on "many"? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

  • There would be a variety of ways to compromise. This edit by PeterTheFourth is not one I would have made, but I can see why he would have considered it a reasonable compromise. It might be more acceptable than it is if the article mentioned more supportive views of Sommers - such as those of Patai and Koertge. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Peter's removal of the quantity is fine with me. The word "some" is not, because it implies that a minority of feminist scholars classify Sommers as antifeminist, when a great majority do so, a great majority of the ones that mention her at all. Otherwise we can cite all of the 30+ scholars in my list and tell the reader how many have been cited saying Sommers works against feminism which is in stark contrast to the few who agree with Sommers, or represent Sommers in a positive light. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable solution to me as well. Strongly agree that it belongs in the lede though, this is one of the most important and significant facts that the article needs to convey. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Agreement was never reached to remove "some", and Binksternet should not be doing in so in the absence of proper discussion. Actually, I wouldn't have any further objection to the removal of "some" provided that it can be mentioned somewhere that some scholars - such as Patai and Koertge - have more supportive views of Sommers. I assume no one would object to that? It can easily be cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If Patai and Koertge are represented then it must be as a distinct minority viewpoint. If you try to equate Patai and Koertge's opinions with the 34 or more scholars who have written negatively about Sommers then you are violating WP:NPOV. Please don't construct a false equivalence. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, this is a revealing statement, Binksternet. You could have said "scholars who have written about Sommers" but instead you said scholars who have written negatively about Sommers. Why the "negatively" if the scholars are being used to determine where Sommers stands on an ideological scale. I get the impression that this is more about pushing a POV, yours and theirs, than it is about a NPOV assessment of Sommers's ideas and positions. Motsebboh (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Malarkey. We have about 36 scholars listed here, all of which have written about Sommers, two of which have written that she is a feminist, the rest writing that she works against feminism. "Against" being negative. Your fishing expedition came up empty. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well it got you to bite, didn't it? What all this reinforces is that your "experts" on feminism are actually more aptly advocates of various, and often quite left-wing, varieties of feminism. Experts on socialism, for example, wouldn't necessarily write negatively about someone who sharply criricized socialism, but socialists probably would. Motsebboh (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

{Hey @Binksternet: where is "here", do you mean in the archive? Could you pretty up the list with proper citation templates and host it on your userspace or something? Also how many of the cites are from people notable enough to have pages like projansky? If we're going to describe cites using labels, having them go through a categorization process is a decent way of making sure the choice of labels are properly sourced and not OR. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur with FreeKnowledgeCreator that simply removing the qualifier is not a reasonable solution. The remaining, unqualified Feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist suffers from the same WP:OR issues as the "most" qualifier, in that implies a uniform, totality of opinion which is not supported by any source. The fundamental difference between these and a qualified ("some" or "many") phrasing is that the latter does not require the same level of transformation & interpretation as the former. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What a wearying discussion. I tried to suggest above how "feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist" might potentially be acceptable if it were followed by a statement to the effect that at least some-self identified feminist authors have views sympathetic to Sommers (which could be cited, and quite easily too). "Feminist scholars have called her works..." ceases to imply a uniform totality of opinion if balancing material is also present. Yet Binksternet has accused me of proposing a biased wording ("If Patai and Koertge are represented then it must be as a distinct minority viewpoint. If you try to equate Patai and Koertge's opinions with the 34 or more scholars who have written negatively about Sommers then you are violating WP:NPOV. Please don't construct a false equivalence"), even though I had not suggested any particular wording. Binksternet should try avoiding ideological warfare and accusing others of violating WP:NPOV (an accusation that others might just as well make against him) and make the best of a good faith suggestion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The quid pro quo you suggested is where I got the idea you were looking for a false equivalence, one in which the many scholars are contradicted by the few, with equivalent weight given to both views. You are free to prove me wrong in this regard by writing one or more paragraphs describing how and why Sommers is considered antifeminist by a large number of Women's Studies scholars, followed by a brief mention of the few scholars who think Sommers is truly feminist. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to give you credit, Binksternet. You have enormous cajones. What you are asking FreeknowledgeCreator to do is EXACTLY what YOU should be doing if you want mention of feminist "scholars" calling Hoff-Sommers "anti-feminist" to stay in the lead. As the body of the article now stands, of course, it should not be in the lead per WP:LEDE because it is not detailed at all in the body. What you have asked me, and now FreeknowledgeCreator, to do is to provide these details for you, even though YOU are the gung-ho guy who has found so many sources for it. Very odd, that! Could it be because their criticisms of Sommers would not cast these "scholars of feminism" in a sympathetic light, at least not for most readers, and that you really prefer that the hit-and-run on Sommers remain in the lead WITHOUT being detailed in the body. Motsebboh (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if all of my Wikipedia activity is "hit and run" these days. Because of the nature of my recent assignments in real life I don't have the time for the intense research, study and concentration that this topic deserves—the juggling of many sources, the striking of an appropriate balance as found in the literature. When I have time I will want to perform the needed expansion, if none here have already done so. Binksternet (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Until the idea of "feminist scholars" is more clearly defined (scholars of feminism who may not be feminist? scholars of any discipline who calls themselves a feminist?), I think "feminist author" makes more sense. The cites are from books so they are certainly authors, "scholar" is a weighty term to throw around meant to impress people. Since only one of the authors even has a Wikipedia article (which doesn't mention scholar) one has to ask how notable these opinions are and how scholarly these people are. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Anti-feminist" redundancy

Per WP:LEDE the bare mention of the fact that feminists "have called her works and positions anti-feminist" should not appear in BOTH the lead and the body of the article unless it is further explained or detailed in the body; which, of course, it presently is not. Specifically, according to WP:LEDE, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." As, it now stands, the lead invites the reader to think that material in the body will explain this criticism when none actually exists there. Instead, there is basically just a repetition of the "feminist scholars have called . . " statement. Since the lead does not preview an explanation in the body as to the basis for this criticism by feminist scholars', the basic fact of it, along with Sommers's bare denial of it, should stay in the body but should not stay in the lead. Motsebboh (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So easy to solve your concern by writing about the 34+ scholars who say that Sommers is working against feminism. Feel free to start. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What you should not do is to remove the information from the lead section since it is so vitally important to Sommers career. Rather than removing it, let's tell the reader that dozens of scholars reject her work. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That 34+ scholars say that Sommers is an anti-feminist is obviously more important to you than it is to me, so I would suggest that you would be a more likely candidate to provide the specifics . As of now, however, though we do have some criticism of Sommers, we have only a general statement that some (or lots of, or most) feminists call her works anti-feminist, so the same statement needn't be made twice. Apparently no editor has yet thought the specifics of any of those 34+ "anti-feminist" critiques important enough, or cogent enough, to place into the article. But, as I said before, you might be good candidate for the job. However, if you do, don't confuse someone calling Sommers's works and positions anti-feminist with "reject(ing) her work". They may be trying to compliment it. Motsebboh (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I too find this article quite weird and short of discussion by scholars, feminist or otherwise. That said, the way to resolve the discrepancy between the article and the lead is to expand the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the lead should be written to fit the body of the article as it presently exists . If the body is expanded then the lead can be changed to fit it. However, I like your reference to "scholars, feminist or otherwise" I haven't spent much time on a college campus since the 1970s but the last I knew there were no professors of liberalism, professors of conservatism, professors of socialism, or professors of feminism. Because an academic considers herself/himself a feminists (or one of our editors considers that person to be a feminist) doesn't mean that her/his opinion is any more valuable than another academic as to whether or not some third party is an anti-feminist. Motsebboh (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your information is outdated. Scholars of feminism exist. We aren't talking about the beliefs held by individual scholars, we are talking about scholars who study the topic of feminism. Call them topic experts. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the more common term is something like "women's studies". However, by all means, tell us what they have to say about Hoff-Sommers other than what we already have, that they think she is an anti-feminist. Motsebboh (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed a sentence in the body of the article which states While some feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist, Sommers rejects such claims.. So I do not see any reason to exclude this from the lead. This lone sentence should be expanded as to why these scholars call the position anti-feminist. As MOS:LEAD states about relative emphasis between the lead and the body, This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we were already well aware that there was almost an identical sentence in the body, which simply adds the fact that Hoff-Sommers rejects the description. Notice that the MOS asks us to harmonize the lead with the body rather than the body with the lead. As I said before, the lead sentence about professional feminists calling Hoff-Sommers an anti-feminist invites the reader to expect an expansion on this point in the body which presently doesn't exist except for the bare rejection by Hoff-Sommers. Binksternet, who has already impressively tracked down 34 professional references describing Hoff-Sommers as a an antifeminist would seem to be the right man editor for this task but he hasn't come across with the details yet. I recommend removing (or suspending) the "antifeminist" sentence from the lead until he or some other editor does. When that happens we should probably include Hoff-Sommers denial in the lead as well, since that would also , presumably, be expanded in the body. Motsebboh (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

We are asked here to endorse an extreme political ideology in which an individual’s specious and self-serving redefinition of feminism -- a redefinition that have been broadly rejected -- is required to be taken at face value. Up is down, patriarchy is feminist, and we have always been at war with eastasia. As soon as Binksternet compiles the requested list of 30 or 40 reference, that list will doubtless be reverted from the article as WP:UNDUE. We all know this, and so volunteer editors are naturally reluctant to waste their time. It is clear from the sources in the article and a cursory reading of the discussion of the subject's work -- and indeed from the discussion here -- that most feminists disagree with the subject’s esoteric and self-serving redefinition of feminism, and the article should reflect that. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If the fear is WP:UNDUE removals then we could still keep a record of the full list here on the talk page to deal with arguments. Is it possible to have a sub-page on the article for listing this stuff to refer people to? We should also focus on the quality of cites rather than the quantity. With only 3 cites next to the "antifeminist" sentence it doesn't seem clear that they represent "most" feminists. Although really no realistic amount of sources could count as "most" feminist since there are millions of them. Probably the best way to do it is to quote a reliable source who makes a "most feminists" claim if it's necessary to include that, and just rely on them as an expert to support "most". The difficulty is of course is if another reliable sources says "no, not most feminists" because then we'd have to resolve the contradiction. Settling the number of scholars who say something about her should be easier since scholars inherently publish things as authors and can be cited, and exist in more manageable numbers than non-scholars. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Motsebboh: regarding the "34 professional references", those are a bit murky and could benefit from more thoroughness and presentation via the citation templates. Perhaps userspace would be a good place for Bink to compile them for consideration? A good first step is to convey in excerpt exactly what the source says of Sommers, and then we should also discuss whether it is appropriate to refer to an individual as a scholar or not. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (aka WP:ACADEMIC / WP:PROF / WP:SCHOLAR / WP:TEACHER) seems like the guide to consult for that. The second shortcut makes me wonder: should we by-default consider anyone who holds a professorship to be considered a scholar at the time of that professorship? That could make things easier. What about statements made by someone before they became a professor or after they stopped being one? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Your "we are asked here to endorse an extreme an extreme ideology . . " utterly loses me. First, because we editors are not being asked to endorse anything at all here (Where did that notion even come from?) and second, because Hoff-Sommers ideas are quite mainstream; pretty close, in fact, to where the average, relatively thoughtful, person-on-the-street would be on gender equality. As for 184's comments, to me the important thing is not verifying that a certain number or percentage of feminist scholars have called Hoff-Sommers ideas anti-feminist, because I'm sure that a significant number have, rather, if the lead statement in question is to remain in any form, we should have some examples of their specific reasons for calling Hoff-Sommers's work anti-feminist in the body of the article. Motsebboh (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't think in terms like that, what exactly is a "significant" number? I can't really know what a significant percentage is until I know what the total number of feminist scholars is and then the total number who have said this. How about instead of a "significant number" we instead look for "significant scholars"? Sarah Projansky is a significant person since she has an article, not sure about the other two. Are there other references from people with articles about them to show their opinion is significant? Also if we're to describe her as a "feminist scholar" we ought to create a Category:Feminist scholars for her article and any others who share such a label. Right now checking out her page she is classed under Category:Women's studies academics so what if we used the WSA term? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Percentages will always be difficult to assess and necessarily involve original research. It is clear, though, that the preponderance of significant scholars of feminism -- that is to say, scholars who are not primarily known for their opposition to feminism -- regard this subject’s views as contrary to prevailing feminist thought. Efforts to redefine feminism for political convenience may amuse some editors, but if they persist they would (a) make the project appear ridiculous when the matter, as it inevitably would, is subjected to broader scrutiny in the press, and (b) further discredit the project’s reputation for following the consensus of reliable sources. It should be clear to all the the subject dissents from many facets of the thought of Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, bell hooks, Germaine Greer, or Judith Butler; these and related thinkers are what people in general understand to be meant by "feminism". MarkBernstein (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If there was intended to be a sound, reasoned, policy & source based argument as to why we should dispense with WP:BLP and WP:NOR to disparage this article's subject, I could not, in faith, find it amongst the bald assertion, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority and hyperbolic slippery slope.
Of course there will be disreputable persons who seek to discredit Wikipedia by peddling mendacity in the press; but if someone wants to email their friends at The Grauniad with invented nonsense, then who are we to try to stop them. If the The Grauniad wants to have to print another retraction, then they should also feel free to fill their boots.
If the Project's reputation rests on one biographical article stating "most Feminist scholars" instead of "many" or "some", then I'll sit in the corner wearing a funny hat. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is it lede worthy that people the subject is critical of, are critical of the subject? A bit like calling politicians RINO's or DINO's in their lede. Arkon (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! That's quite a rogues gallery that MarkBerstein has presented as typical feminists; mainly Marxists or anarchists with one democratic-socialist (Steinem) thrown in for balance. No, someone at odds with those people is not necessarily an anti-feminist. Motsebboh (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Efforts to redefine feminism for political convenience" Man...I wish I could find an example around here somewhere... LCrowter (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What seems like a preponderance to some may not seem like that to others. Considering that Christina's writers accuse some opposition of redefining feminism for political purposes, the accusation coming back at her isn't unique. You insist something should be "clear to all" but that's appealing to OR. We are not feminism experts, it is much less OR to take strict tallies when wanting to discuss numbers than to insert ourselves as experts on judging who is the real feminist and who is not. If reliable sources are supporting and opposing then it seems like there's not a consensus among experts and we can just show there are conflicting views. MB you mention Beauvoir/Steinem/Hooks/Greer/Butler. If Sommers has said she agrees universally with one of these and then makes a statement which contradicts one of them, I can see value in presenting the quotes side by side for readers to analyze and draw their own conclusions from. Just so long as we don't draw conclusions for them, that would only be appropriate if we're citing a source which comes to those conclusions. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Scholars tally

At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christina_Hoff_Sommers Binksternet linked to Special:Diff/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christina_Hoff_Sommers which is a list now archived just above Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_5#Can_we_get_a_photo_of_Sommers_back.3F. Is there any way to add more detail to this to see if it supports B's claim that these authors call her antifeminist and dismiss she's a feminist and say she's working against feminism? Like every single one of them says all 3 things? Although some books/pages are linked there's no quotes, and the first 5 are just the names of Kinahan/Schreiber/Bauer/Rhoades/Hammer with no guide as to what we need to read to verify the claim. Before figuring what word to assign to the relative quantity of scholars saying something about Sommers it would be nice to get a more specific idea of what exact number are saying what things first. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Having looked into what is currently after the (second) "some feminist scholars" statement (anchored the first one to the second to avoid people claiming the first is unsourced) three authors certainly qualifies as "some" although given that it would be 1 extra character to write "three" or three fewer characters to write "3" I'm not sure why we use "some" at all. For now perhaps it's good to keep the statement flexible so that more sources can be added?

Right now the references to a 6th chapter by Vint in a 2010 book by Mendlesohn, a 2nd chapter in a 2001 book by Projansky, and a 4th chapter in a 2014 book by Anderson. Huh... you know, I'm going to flip it so Projansky is mentioned first so that the cites are in chronological order...

Of the three authors I could only find an article about Sarah Projansky, the 2001 author. Vint's editor Farah Mendlesohn has a page but since the statement is in a chapter written by Sherryl Vint it is her credentials we should weigh. Could find no page for Kristin Anderson or Kristin J. Anderson page.

Given that Projansky has the earliest-cited work and seems the most notable, starting with her, she is in University of Utah and holds a dual professorship in "gender studies" and "film and media studies". She got a PhD in film studies in 1995 in University of Iowa. In terms of the word "scholar" I see it twice in her article: both under her co-editorship of "Enterprise Zones": "Enterprising Zones was the first critical, scholarly look at Star Trek" and "Readers will discover the unique changes of cultural studies scholarship and how it enables to appoint a powerful phenomenon such as Star Trek." The only thing is, I'm not sure if she worked on this book in 1996 or 2006, five years before or after the 2001 book. So I don't know if we can rely on this as what makes her a scholar until we know if EZ made her a scholar before or after writing the statements.

Should we rely on the awards that Watching Rape won to establish her as a scholar? There is:

• January 2002: Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Women's Caucus Emily Toth Award for Excellence in Feminist Studies of Popular Culture
• November 2002: National Communication Association, Critical/Cultural Studies Division

The second case seems like it might be incomplete and missing the award name... anyway it says she's been a member of the NCA since 1997, can't see any mention of her being a PCA/ACAWC though.

In struggling to understand what the criteria is for "scholar" I wonder if we could refer to more clearly known achievements. Like for example "film studies doctor" since she got a 1995 doctorate in film studies.

I'm not even going to touch the other two since their lack of articles makes it way harder to research them, something to deal with if we can resolve how to discuss Projansky. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Name change

Can we list somewhere when she went from being Christina Hoff to Christina Hoff Sommers? I don't see that listed anywhere. Nor was it listed on the Frederic Sommers article. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The easy assumption would, of course, be that it was at marriage; but, without a reliable source, we would be remiss to include a date. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Even operating on this assumption I'm still not sure when they got married, neither article mentions it. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Equity feminist or individualist feminist in lead.

The Stanford Encyclopedia describes her position. We have an article on Individualist feminist where she is listed. She is sought out and published in a number of outlets because of her view of feminism. It's nonsensical to deprive her of her own label and the the label of neutral sources. She isn't writing solicited columns for TIME or The Atlantic because of her wardrobe. She is clearly sought out for her position as an equity feminist or individualist feminist. That such a nit claim is disputed is beyond the pale of POV pushing. If she claimed to be transgender, the announcement would be be enough. What thought process denies "equity feminist" or "individualist feminist" or "classically liberal feminist?" Reliable sources recognise it. We should too. --DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a great many, very high quality RS describe her primarily as anti feminist, and dismiss the "equity" label as spin/window dressing. I see no reason why Sommers' preferred label for herself should trump what very large numbers of high quality RS say. If you're suggesting that the sources which describe her as an individualist or equity feminist should be given greater weight that's fine, but you're incorrect to suggest that that is an uncontroversial or straightforward fact. It's been very clearly and very strongly challenged by a large number of RS. Treating that as an simple fact would be massively undue weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, could you give two or three of the best sources that describe her as anti-feminist? Motsebboh (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few, just from spending a couple minutes on google books: 12345. All of those are peer-reviewed, academic monographs by experts in related fields, and published by major presses such as Oxford, NYU, and Routledge. I'm sure I could find you a lot more/better sources given time (can't access my usual library resources atm). But you might also want to check out this previous talk page discussion, where Binksternet linked a large number of scholars/sources who define Sommers as anti-feminist. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And those views are covered. They don't refute that she is an individualist feminist or equity feminist or libertarian feminist, rather they argue their belief that those schools of feminist thought are "anti-feminist." There are many schools of thought regarding feminism and we wouldn't use Wendy McElroy's or Sommer's assessment for others. --DHeyward (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly you are arguing for. "Equity feminist" is already used in the lead isn't it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Her identity is individualist feminist which we have an article on. We list "equity feminist" as a term she coined but the argument that she shouldn't be identified as an "individualist feminist" obtusely denies why she is so prominent and so prevalent in a number of publishing outlet. --DHeyward (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sommers herself is described as working against feminism. It's not just the feminists complaining about "equity feminism" or whatever you call it. Toril Moi writes that Sommers is "one of America's leading feminist bashers."[1] Philosophy professor Tom Digby writes puts Sommers' self-described feminism in scare quotes, saying that she wrote "a series of antifeminist articles."[2] Sue Hatt, Linda Watson-Brown et al write that Sommers is among the so-called "free market feminists" who advocate women to "stay in their place and maintain the accustomed distinction between the public world of paid employment and the private world of domestic caring labour."[3] Leola A. Johnson writes that Sommers is one of the "new antifeminists" who have replaced Phyllis Schlafly as the "most visible antifeminists" in the U.S.[4] Elisabeth Armstrong of Smith College says that Sommers reports but ignores critically important statistics which disprove her whole theory: "Sommers cites statistics which reveal most young women's support for a strong women's movement to fight for women's equal rights and equal pay. Even in the face of this evidence, she draws the assumption that feminism is a movement dying a natural death, though she simultaneously credits its demise to the favorable conditions faced by women in the United States."[5] There's a ton of these; I could go on and on. Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Quote from DH "They don't refute that she is an individualist feminist or equity feminist or libertarian feminist, rather they argue their belief that those schools of feminist thought are "anti-feminist."" Do you have anything saying she isn't an individualist feminist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.185.8 (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My own feeling is that she is more well known for the idea of "equity feminism", rather than "individualist feminism". Perhaps I'm wrong, if so, I don't really have a problem with adding that moniker. The "anti-feminism" description is already present in the lead. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The qualifier isn't at issue. "Equity feminist" or "individualist feminist" or "classically liberal feminist" is fine. The distinction is less important than noting why she is sought for her opinion in so many outlets. It's inherently libertarian which is why so many publications seek her out. She is set apart from entitlement feminism as well as radical feminism. There is quite a diversity of thought in what feminism is and what it is not - and views from every facet are published as "feminist." --DHeyward (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

She is sought because she espouses the social conservative position on gender roles, the old status quo where women were supposed to stay home while men had a career. Reactionaries such as Rush Limbaugh love Sommers. Toril Moi says as much in her scholarly article "'I Am Not a Feminist, but...': How Feminism Became the F-Word".[6] Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That's nonsense and outlets like The Atlantic and Slate show otherwise. Her own life does not reflect the demeaning and uninformed stereotype you depict. Her disagreement with other feminists is not anywhere close to the gender roles you depict. It is so far off that you shouldn't even be writing about her. Competence is required. --DHeyward (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are offended by the depiction in the scholarly literature of Sommers as a cynical political tool. Competence includes seeing past one's preferred stance, being objective. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not offended, just aghast at the ignorance you spewed. No one with scholarly understanding dismisses her view as "old status quo where women were supposed to stay home."Her view doesn't come close to your imagintation. That you fail to see that is part of your problem with editing this BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at what's in the literature, if you bothered to look. The scholarly editors of Market, State and Feminism: The Economics of Feminist Policy decided that the writer Linda Watson-Brown was worthy of a chapter in their book, the chapter called "Gender, Economic Life and Politics". Watson-Brown says that a handful of "those writing from a free market feminist perspective", including Sommers, describe how women should "keep the home fires burning, stay in their place", and maintain traditional gender roles.[7] Sommers is writing for reactionaries. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone needs to be reminded of WP:NOTFORUM? The talk page of this article isn't a place for editors to repeat over and over and over and over again, drearily, boringly, and (to other editors) wearyingly that they don't like Sommers; it is meant to be for discussing improving the article. Binksternet, if you have any actual proposals to make, then make them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Our own article explains that (Redacted). We are asked to take it at face value and to endorse this doubtful proposition. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

All of my comments here are intended to remind editors of how Sommers is not respected by most academics. Those editors who would rather have a hagiography need to be reminded, as they are violating WP:NPOV if they put forward too much praise and not enough criticism. The criticism must be presented strongly as it comes from a very respected source: academic experts. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I must have missed that somehow. Where does our own article explain that (Redacted)? Motsebboh (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't. Redacted per WP:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:

Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers define individualist feminism in opposition to what they call political or gender feminism.[9][10] Some scholars and critics have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism.[11][12]

In other words. Wikipedia says that the subject's purported identification with individualist feminism is widely considered a cynical ruse, if you believe saying this is a BLP violation, AE is that away. --> A whole heap of press ridicule and scorn lies in that direction, too. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• ANI initiated at WP:ANI#Alleged_BLP_vios_on_Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers requesting admin review of the alleged blp vios. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

For those not able to find the information in Christina Hoff Sommers, the text above is from Individualist feminism; it would perhaps be better for quotations or references from other articles to be explicitly identified; resolving in part the BLP question a priori.
I note that of the sources used at that page - one, an NPR transcript[8], does not mention this article's subject; and the second, a WaPost review[9], does not appear to mention the claim. I am not certain that the redacted claim, including the qualifier "most", is sustainable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal views on the merits of individualist or equity feminism are not relevant. To take a current topic - "Resolved:Applying title IX to academics is necessary" can be debated by feminists without one side losing the label of "feminist." One side can argue a patriarchal institution requires special redress, another can argue that women can and do compete equitably within the system. Arguing that one side is "feminist" and not the other is nonsense. Either position can be argued by feminists and mansplaining why one is not feminist is rather degrading. --DHeyward (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Accomplishments of authors at time of publication

Sarah Projansky appears to presently be a professor of gender studies, what was she in 2001?

Sherryl Vint appears to presently be a professor of English, what was she in 2010?

Kristin J. Anderson appears to presently be a professor of psychology, what was she in 2014?

I think it would be good to explore this to see if there is a more specific collective label that can be applied to describe them at the time of their citations.

Anything at https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#1990s for example I would not feel comfortable saying "a president has said" since Obama was not a president in the 90s. I would have to describe him in terms of what he was at that time. I guess it would be okay to mention as an afterthought that the person became president just so long as it is not implied that those things were not said during a term of presidency.

I have the same concern for professors. My being able to find out these 3 women are presently professors doesn't educate me much on whether they were when they wrote these things. I could see Anderson, possibly Vint, since that's only 2-6 years, but I'm more skeptical about Projansky since that's 15 years.

Just anything better than this vague "scholar" which I'm not even sure what degree/position it is supposed to mean. Do you need a doctorate? A bachelor's degree? A teaching position?

It occurred to me that a simple starting point would be to consult the "about the author" sections in the respective sources. In Watching Rape page 311 Projansky refers to herself as "assistant professor of women and gender studies" and a 1995 PhD in film studies. There is apparently a "Contributors" section of "on Joanna Russ" but I'm not able to view it in the preview for more info on Vint. Modern Misogyny has Acknowledgements/Introduction/Conclusion, the first 2 don't appear to mention credentials and I can't view the conclusion in the preview so I don't know if she gets around to it then. Willing to assume she was a prof 2 years ago though, more interested in the first 2. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Coining of terms

I found a source which credits Sommers for coining "gender feminism" in her 1994 book. I read the cited PDF speech and I don't see anything in it saying that she coined the term "equity feminism", so I changed it to "uses the term". She in fact in the speech said that equity feminism is not something new.

Are there any sources out there which do credit her with coining equity feminism? Any reliable ones? Has she ever claimed to have coined the word? Seeing as how I found 2 uses of it in 1989/1990 preceding her 1994 book, the topic is certainly bigger than her book (why I created equity feminism article) this should call into doubt any claims that she coined the word.

That this claim has sat on Wikipedia for so long makes me wonder how many later sources this could have influenced. Does anyone know when this was added? Did people just assume that because she used it in her speech that she coined it? Did someone misremember the claim that she coined gender feminism as her coining equity feminism?

If any sources do credit her with coining equity feminism in 1994 I think we should cite them if only to Snopes them by showing this is a false claim, but perhaps a persistent rumor, one Wikipedia may have contributed to fostering. If she did coin it, it would have had to have been in some publication prior to the 1994 book. The Hamilton College speech transcribed in the PDF is date 2008 so it certainly wasn't there either. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the material about "equity feminism" not being a new term. I don't consider that relevant or appropriate, and your addition may violate WP:NOR; one of the sources you added did not even mention Sommers. Also, some of the language you added to the lead ("She is described as an equity feminist and by extension a classical-liberal and libertarian feminist") is questionable and stilted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Citing sources to show that "equity feminism" was used in 1989 and 1990 is not original research. Consider this claim:

Sommers coined the term "equity feminist"

Until 23 February 2016 this claim has been present in some form ever since it was added in 2005. That's 11 years of people reading Wikipedia and coming to believe that Sommer coined "equity feminism". So leaving a note that it was in use by other authors in 89/90 is an entirely rational precaution. People are going to be very prone to adding this back and I want to disourage that unless there's some pre-89 sources coming along with it. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's totally irrelevant that the term "equity feminism" was used in 1989 and 1990. That has nothing to do with Sommers, and there is no reason why the article should point it out. If Sommers did not coin the term "equity feminism", then by all means remove that claim - but don't add material that has nothing to do with her. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It does have something to do with her, clearly some people think she coined the term, Wikipedia's been endorsing that claim for over a decade. Having a commented-out disclaimer to prevent people from adding it back is a logical deterrent. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No. The overwhelming majority of readers are never even going to see a commented-out disclaimer, because they won't open the article to edit it. It's inappropriate and serves no useful purpose. Aside from that, it's not the purpose of a Wikipedia article to counter any possible misconception readers may have about its topic. Maybe some people do wrongly believe that Sommers coined the term "equity feminism" - but the lead is meant to be only a summary of the basic facts about Sommers and it's not appropriate for the lead to state that "equity feminism" was already in use in the 1980s. That isn't one of the basic facts about her. While it might perhaps cause people to view Sommers's work differently, it really isn't a fact about her at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply omit mention of so-called “equity feminism”, since (a) it appears the subject did not, as had been claimed, invent the term, and (b) the term is sufficiently obscure anyway that we can't find who did invent it. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether she coined it or defined it is just word games. Stanford Encyclopedia gives her credit [10]. It's the prevailing and cited definition. She also juxtaposed it against gender feminists. --DHeyward (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Individual critics in the lead

This edit by Fyddlestix names individual critics of Sommers in the lead. I consider that inappropriate. Toril Moi, Alison Jaggar, and the other person mentioned would hardly be Sommers most prominent critics, and there is no valid reason for them to be mentioned by name in the lead. "Some feminist scholars" was the right level of detail for a summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Kimmel is without question one of Sommers' most prominent critics, I'm surprised that you would not know that. I would argue that the others are certainly "up there" as well - although I could easily cite any number of about 10 or 12 others if you prefer. More to the point, I don't see how your objection has any basis in policy, since WP:NPOV requires us to give all perspectives their due weight, and these scholars (among others, admittedly) carry a lot of weight. Naming them gives their perspective on Sommers (which, again, really is the perspective shared by most mainstream feminists) appropriate significance and weight, and ensures that a claim which has proven controversial (here, if not in the real world) is attributed. "Some" sounds like we're talking about a minority, which is emphatically not the case. By naming the scholars, we ensure that Sommers' own view is not given undue weight, and let the reader know that her viewpoint has been challenged by people whose opinion carries significant weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyddlestix, but the lead does not need to mention ten or twelve critics of Sommers. That you could easily cite ten or twelve people as Sommers's most prominent critics simply proves my point: there is no valid purpose to mentioning individual critics of Sommers in the lead, because there really is no prominent person who stands out. There might be some purpose to mentioning one particular critic if he or she were especially relevant or significant. I do not believe that you could demonstrate that. Your comment that "naming them gives their perspective on Sommers...appropriate significance and weight" is a piece of nonsense. Rather, what you've done is to give individuals (Moi, etc) more notice than they deserve; the importance of their "perspective" is not shown by naming these persons, and can appropriately be done by other means (eg, noting that it is a common view). WP:NPOV requires that we not give individual critics a prominence that their actual importance does not entitle them to. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely my point - these scholars' perspective (and the perspective of literally dozens of other scholars who hold a similar view) carries more weight than Sommers' own definition of herself, or the SEP (which is just one source, really the only source out there that lends Sommers' self-identificatuon much academic credibility - and which I note you don't seem to object to naming/attributing in a similar matter). As it was written before, the lede gave undue weight to their view while minimizing/ignoring a broad scholarly consensus that Sommers is in fact anti-feminist. If yall continue to drag your heels on this I will either bring it to NPOVN or launch an RFC, which I'm about 95% certain would result in an even stronger statement about Sommers' anti-feminism. Trying to meet you folks halfway here but I'm seeing a troubling refusal to recognize and accept what the vast majority of the most reliable sources say about this subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Some feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist." This is proper weight. There is no reason to name those individuals in the lead unless you want to make this a hit piece. Besides, you need reliable sourcing to say most. So put up or shut up.128.175.185.8 (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My revision doesn't say most so that's neither here nor there. And accurately representing the academic literature is not even remotely the same thing as making the article a hit piece. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Scholar" is being terribly cheapened in these instances. "Feminist Academic" would be far more accurate. Arkon (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Malarkey. Scholars of Women's Studies are topic experts. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the language that several these 'scholars" use about Sommers and other female writers that they dislike. Often no real difference than what one would see in a Slate or HuffPo opinion piece. Motsebboh (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, feminist academics are critical of people critical of modern feminism, big whoop. But they aren't scholars. Arkon (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)