Jump to content

Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S806 (talk | contribs) at 13:55, 16 March 2018 (→‎Threaded discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The WP:LABEL thing

Hey, regarding this, can we just label her as an equity feminist? It's kinda her thing. Arkon (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the article more-or-less does that. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

feminist and anti-feminist

I have followed the discussion here for a while. There are sources claiming CHS is a feminist, and there are sources claiming CHS is an anti-feminist. So any attempts to add that she is a feminist, always get reverted. So why, since there is no consensus on her feminism/anti-feminism, is this allowed to be in the article? It should be removed.

"While some authors have called her works and positions anti-feminist, Sommers rejects such claims."

It is clunky language, feels tacked on, and feels like it's not NPOV, especially with no consensus. S806 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel this is not NPOV? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it. Because there are sources describing her as a feminist, and an anti-feminist, but the only thing allowed in the article is describing her as an anti-feminist. Since we have sources for both, they should either both be in there, or neither should be in there. S806 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read the past discussion. There was absolutely NO consensus to put anti-feminist in the article. S806 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 3 sources referring to CHS as a feminist.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11527238/Meet-the-feminist-who-is-sticking-up-for-men.html https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-mortal/201609/is-modern-academic-feminism-harming-women https://www.bustle.com/articles/131105-19-inspiring-feminists-to-watch-in-2016-because-the-movement-is-just-getting-stronger

I would argue that there should be wording describing this non-consensus S806 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a source describe the "non-consensus", as each source takes its own stance on the matter. If we tell the reader there's no consensus, we are violating WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, you're ignoring WP:BALANCE, which clearly states that both points of views should be described for balance. Hence NPOV. S806 (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is widely described as an anti- feminist. But the lead and the body of the article seem to treat this rather delicately. The lead describes her neologistic feminism clearly. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, my only point is about that specific section. It's clunky in two parts. The first one "While some authors have called her works and positions anti-feminist", yes, this is undeniable, and true, however it is also undeniable and true that some authors and scholars have described her work as feminist, and as a defense of what they claim to be feminism. The larger point with this is, feminism is kind of poorly defined, so it allows multiple people to make claims about what is and isn't feminism. The second part "Sommers rejects such claims", is sourced directly from her twitter. I don't believe (I could be wrong), that this is a valid source. WP:PRIMARY States "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". I would argue, that this may not be valid. S806 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am wary of misleading the reader with a false equivalence, telling them that the people who describe Sommers as a feminist are as established, respected or numerous as the ones who describe Sommers as working against feminism. In the past on this talk page, I've listed 30+ scholars who have written about Sommers in the context of anti-feminism. (See Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_7#Antifeminist_references_from_scholars and Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_8#Hoff_Sommers_considered_a_feminist.) These are top-level sources that strongly establish Sommers as an antifeminist. A very few scholars call her a feminist, so there is an imbalance there, making "she's a feminist" a minor viewpoint. A big concern is that socially conservative political figures and pundits are among those who call Sommers a feminist, for the purpose of driving a wedge between feminists, to weaken the political opposition. If they classify Sommers as a feminist then they can say that feminists don't put forward a consistent narrative. This stratagem is described by some of the topic scholars, so perhaps we ought to put it into the article, that Sommers-as-feminist is a tool for political ends. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I chose one of your sources at random, and started reading. I'll quote it here. "The conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid. In the course of denouncing "gender feminism," Professor Sommers accused me of claiming that all heterosexual dating was a form of prostitution and that women would never be truly equal with men until it was possible to surgically implant.....". Clearly this source is not top-level, and may have a personal interest in how CHS is labeled. I can't look through all of them, but clearly some of your sources are poor sources. EDIT: Inserting source listed https://books.google.com/books?id=CdfgMEV3f6oC&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false S806 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly" the text doesn't fit your preferred vision of Sommers-as-feminist. The author is writing from a position of expertise and experience, and the author is a respected scholar. Your dismissal of the source is noted, but it's no less of a good source. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, wait... Are you actually trying to accuse me of being biased here? I've read the archives, you have fought harder than anybody to keep any mention of feminist off of this page. Please stop. S806 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop arguing for neutrality? Hardly. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've already lost the narrative once you started getting upset and assuming intent. Perhaps this would be a good read for you WP:ASG, although I doubt you will take any of it to heart. S806 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material

I have reversed the effects of this unhelpful edit. WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY was mentioned in the edit summary, but it leads to a guideline that contains nothing that would justify the edit. The only remaining rationale given was "stick with notable works", but no evidence was offered that the works that were removed are not notable. I did an EBSCO search for material about One Nation Under Therapy, and found it that it produced some 27 search results, which includes more than eighteen reviews, in both news and opinion magazines such as National Review and peer-reviewed academic publications such as Science & Education. There is more than enough material to justify an article about the book. There was rather less material available for The Science on Women in Science, but still possibly enough to justify an article. In any case, the idea that books have to be "notable" in order to be mentioned in biographical articles is a misconception with no basis in Wikipedia's policies. As per WP:NOTE, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It is perfectly appropriate to list books someone wrote in an article about them even if the books would not merit their own articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material (again)

Regarding this edit, I frankly find it baffling that anyone would remove so much material about Who Stole Feminism?, which is the book Sommers is best known for, while keeping so much material about The War Against Boys, which is a less well-known work that is not so central to her reputation. The edit leaves the article unbalanced and appears unjustifiable. The editor who removed the material compared it to summarizing the plot of Harry Potter novels in the J. K. Rowling article. The comparison is misleading. The material removed was only partially a summary of the actual contents of Who Stole Feminism?; part of it also concerned the reaction to the book. Cutting back the material might have been justified, but not removing all but the barest mention of the book's contents (which is now uncited, which is unacceptable in itself). If the reason for the removal was that Who Stole Feminism? has its own article, I have to point out that there is no reason why information cannot be mentioned in more than one article if it is relevant to more than one article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because we already contain the information in the article linked - we don't have an article on 'The War Against Boys', however. I'd prefer we did have a seperate article on 'The War Against Boys', and contained a small summary here, instead of reproducing the articles in full in this article which strikes me as kind of dumb. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That we "already contain the information in the article linked" is not a reason for removing all of the material you removed. As I said, there is no problem in mentioning information relevant to more than one article in more than one article. You suggest no actual reason why it would be wrong to include a given piece of information in more than one article, and of course there isn't one. You removed material that is obviously of crucial relevance to this article, including the criticism of Sommers from feminist groups and her response to that criticism, and in doing so you measurably lowered the quality of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on Sommers. We similarly don't include reams of material from our article on novels (to explain what a novel is) or our article on polemics (to explain what polemics are). We should only include material where relevant to Sommers. Book reviews are not relevant to Sommers. The inclusion of this sentence 'Melanie Kirkpatrick of the Hudson Institute, writing in The Wall Street Journal, praised the book for its "lack of a political agenda. ... Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another."' does absolutely nothing for the readers understanding of the subject of this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article to get some background on Sommers, and I also thought that the deletion was excessive. This is like saying that we should delete the invasion of Normandy from the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, because the invasion has its own article. If you want to reduce the summary to a 400-word paragraph that would cover the essentials -- if you can do a good job -- and then link to the article on the book, that would be acceptable to me. This is a major book, which introduces me to her thinking, and reducing that book to a one-sentence summary doesn't tell me what I need to know. Wikipedia style, like WP:NOTJOURNAL, require articles to be self-contained; you can't write a Wikipedia article that requires people to click on links to understand the article, and you can't understand Sommers without understanding her books. We do include reviews; reviews are WP:RS secondary sources and are the foundation of Wikipedia. I don't like WP:PEACOCK quotes, but we should have quotes that make substantive arguments. And I disagree with you on the Kirkpatrick quote. Sommers claims to have no political agenda and to be concentrating on facts. I'm not convinced that it's true, but I might want to read Kirkpatrick's review to see how she supports that claim.--Nbauman (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth wrote, "This is an article on Sommers. We similarly don't include reams of material from our article on novels (to explain what a novel is) or our article on polemics (to explain what polemics are). We should only include material where relevant to Sommers. Book reviews are not relevant to Sommers." Wrong. Of course book reviews are "relevant to Sommers" if they are about books she wrote. The reviews affect her image, either positively or negatively, and they obviously concern her. Despite what you may think, it is normal to mention reviews of books written by a particular author in an article about that author. Try removing all mention of reviews of books by given authors from articles about those authors and you would be reverted and rightly so. There is no case for simply removing outright all mention of how an author's books were reviewed from an article about them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably trim both sections and combine them. Devoting a section to each book is excessive - regardless of which she's better known for, neither had much long-term impact in academia; skimming the recent coverage of her, they rarely get any in-depth coverage. Mentioning them is fine, of course, since they helped make her reputation, but a one-sentence summary of each is fine - detailed examination of what they say and the coverage they received at the time is better confined to their own articles. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those of Sommers' writings that have ignited a debate in the media should be discussed in appropriate depth in this biography article. Observers have often used her works as an occasion for comments about her expressed viewpoints, arguing against them or praising them, so we should summarize these responses to her writings, as they reveal for the reader how Sommers is judged by topic scholars and the media. A review of a political book tells a great deal about the thinking of the author. The fawning puffery must go, but the book reviews should be restored. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The fawning puffery must go, but the book reviews should be restored." This is the makings of a violation of WP:NPOV. I strongly disagree with this opinion. S806 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck getting consensus to include fawning puffery. Doesn't seem at all likely. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the reason why the comment from Kirkpatrick is there is simply to illustrate the positive responses Who Stole Feminism? received from some. That's reasonable in principle. If there were some other way of illustrating the positive side of the book's reception without mentioning that specific review of the book, then it can always be replaced with something else. Doing so may well be desirable. Removing all mention of positive responses to the book while keeping the mention of negative responses is not exactly neutral, however... FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another example of something that is not neutral: this edit by Binksternet, which removed a positive comment about Sommers's work with the explanation that the comment was "completely false"! Binksternet, you as a reasonably experienced editor should know very well that editors are not supposed to remove material about contentious subjects (or anything, really) just because they personally disagree with it. Would you like a patronizing lesson about Wikipedia's basic content policies, which I am ready and willing to deliver? I hope you will simply use better judgment in future, and that the patronizing lesson can be avoided. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the quote is puffery. The source is a fellow traveler of Sommers, a woman who holds reactionary social views.[1] The woman, Melanie Kirkpatrick, has no independent notability. She praises the book as part of her paid work to push a politically conservative point of view. Her words here are not important enough for us to bother with. That's the reason why I removed the quote. Beyond that, I also believe personally that the quote is totally wrong, as it portrays Who Stole Feminism as having no political agenda. A quick digital search shows that the book contains at least 90 instances of the words "political", "politics" and "politically". In the book, Sommers repeatedly describes feminism in the context of political changes and movements. So not only is Melanie Kirkpatrick not famous enough to quote, and the chosen quote a perfect example of puffery, and Kirkpatrick a paid political operative who is politically aligned with Sommers, but she's also totally wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is not to determine what is right or wrong. That would violate WP:NOR S806 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is to summarize for the reader all the important things published about a topic. Kirkpatrick's review is not important. See WP:WEIGHT. If someone here disagrees, the onus is on those who wish to include this bit, to show that the bit is important enough. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to argue with you all day. I strongly disagree with your personal editing policy on this page. I personally like to discuss and find consensus before making contentious changes. I guess not everybody agrees. S806 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, you may wish to review WP:NPOV, which states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Kirkpatrick's review was published in The Wall Street Journal, which does qualify as a reliable source, at least as far as I'm aware. Per WP:SOURCES, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." Such publications are listed as including, "Mainstream newspapers". Also, contrary to what you may think, Wikipedia does not actually have a policy insisting that we must not report the views of people whom Wikipedia editors allege to have "reactionary social views" or even people whom Wikipedia editors assert have "no independent notability." Your personal opinion that Kirkpatrick's views are either not important or incorrect is irrelevant. Now, wasn't that patronizing? As for the issue of weight, WP:WEIGHT states that, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." A reasonable conclusion would be that this means that, in a case where someone published a controversial book that received both positive and negative reactions, that we mention that it received both positive and negative reactions. It's not that difficult. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's NPOV that I'm upholding by removing puffery from Kirkpatrick who is a colleague of Sommers at the Hudson Institute. They are both pushing their political views, and in any case, the selected quote from Kirkpatrick is empty praise, not worthy of inclusion. WEIGHT is also on my side, as Kirkpatrick is not considered an important thought leader by the media. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP:NPOV say that if someone works for the Hudson Institute, Wikipedia must never report or mention their views? Or that if someone is a colleague of a particular person, then their views must never be mentioned in an article about that person? Also, where does WP:WEIGHT say that someone's views should not be mentioned if they are not "considered an important thought leader by the media"? How do you suppose Wikipedia's policies actually support what you are saying? You are employing a double standard by suggesting that the comments from Kirkpatrick should be removed because they push her political views while not objecting to the mention of criticism of Sommers from a feminist group, criticism which obviously pushes its political views. You suggest that Kirkpatrick's views should be removed because she is not "considered an important thought leader by the media"; do you have evidence that the feminist who criticized Sommers, Laura Flanders, is "considered an important thought leader by the media"? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Flanders the journalist and TV commentator is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, so that's a strong basis for inclusion here. Many other critics of Sommers are scholars, and scholarly writings are top level sources on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An EBSCO search for "Who Stole Feminism" produced some 148 hits, and while it is true that many of these are reviews or other commentary written in 1994 or 1995, there is also (for example) a review in Spectra from 2004, showing that Sommers's book was still a subject of discussion at least a decade after its publication. I don't know what the claim that the book did not have "much long-term impact in academia" is based on. Properly explaining Sommers's ideas obviously requires more than a single sentence so no, a "one-sentence summary of each" is not fine. The "selected works" section is quite short and there is no reason to cut it back further. Listing all of Sommers's works would be excessive had she written or edited as many books as say Isaac Asimov, but of course she hasn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
user:PeterTheFourth, book reviews are specifically listed in WP:RS WP:NEWSORG. Could you explain why you believe "Book reviews are not relevant to Sommers"? --Nbauman (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we should be removing positive reviews. A review is a review. A person doesn't have to be a scholar or a phd to give a book review. While not all reviews are equal, I see nothing wrong with including a review from the wall street journal. It would be dishonest, and attack editing to only include negative reviews. ProtoNexus (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it is of crucial importance whether we include the specific review by Kirkpatrick or not. What is important is that the article acknowledge that the book did receive positive reactions from some reviewers (Binksternet apparently disagrees and thinks we should report only negative views). The quote from Kirkpatrick can of course be replaced with something else if it does a better job of summarizing the positive side of the book's reception. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to see positive reviews that are truthful in their portrayal of the book, and specific in their approval of this or that idea expressed by Sommers. The positive reviews that are puffery – not so much. A perfect example of puffery is "Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another." A perfect example of untruthful portrayal is that the book Who Stole Feminism has no political agenda (this from a fellow Hudson Institute associate.[2][3]) So please find some specific praise of the ideas expressed by Sommers in her books, and I will not delete it. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have adopted an utterly negative and hostile attitude to Sommers and her work, you will excuse me if I am not convinced that you would accept that there actually are any "positive reviews that are truthful in their portrayal of the book". If it has to be repeated that what you (or me, or any other Wikipedia editor) considers truthful is irrelevant, then that's unfortunate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I am happy to see positive reviews that are truthful in their portrayal of the book" Again, this is original research. It isn't up to you to determine what is truthful and what isn't. That is why we rely on sources. Reviews are reviews, and are based on opinion. S806 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivially easy to see when the reviewer is talking about something that is indeed found in the book, or when they are denying things covered thoroughly in the book. We as Wikipedians are responsible for summarizing for the reader the writings about a topic, especially telling the reader about major/mainstream/consensus viewpoints, but also minor viewpoints that are represented well enough in the literature to include here. If a writer is obviously wrong on some point, then the various editors who are interested in the topic can discuss what to do with the wrong "fact". This happens all the time on article talk pages. So here we have a minor writer expressing a viewpoint that is unsupported by the book itself. (Who Stole Feminism supposedly has no political agenda, but it discusses the politics of feminism at great length.) What to do? I say it's clear that we a) find another positive quote from Kirkpatrick, one that is substantial and substantiated, or b) remove the Kirkpatrick praise altogether. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm going to choose C) vote to keep the Kirkpatrick quote in, because there is nothing wrong with it. It's a review from a legitimate reviewer, from a legitimate website, and a perfectly valid source. I'm sorry you feel so strongly about it, but I'm not going to vote to take out a valid quote, simply because you don't like it. S806 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONUS is on whoever wants to keep the bit to show that it's relevant here. It's the kind of empty praise found on book covers. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you keep saying that, shows you have no idea how WP works. I'm sorry, but you're simply not going to remove that line without consensus. Build consensus for the change you want. Don't try to bully people to bow to your vision. S806 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kirkpatrick's position with the Hudson Institute began in 2010. The review was written in 1994; sixteen years earlier. At that time, she was employed full time by the WSJ. There may be reasons to exclude the review, but Kirkpatrick's current position is not one. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that apart from this[4] (a "bio" page containing only Hoff Sommers name), which is not linked from the list page of fellows & experts[5], I was unable to find anything suggesting that Hoff Sommers has done any work for the Hudson Institute. (Not that this would be an impediment to inclusion, of course). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this one quote such an issue for some people? Why is this the hill to die on? This one single quote has been stable on the page for a long time. Leave it on. ProtoNexus (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is puffery. It was used by the publisher as promotional copy on the book jacket. The quote was added 3.5 years ago by someone who didn't even have the original source available, just the book publisher's version. The flattery expressed in the quote is indicative of the state of this article. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have the source now though, and it's a real and very legitimate source. I'm still not following why you have an issue with it, unless as others suggested, your issue is that it's a positive review. ProtoNexus (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have the source? South African editor Willhesucceed, who edited disruptively and non-neutrally with a pro-Gamergate, pro-Breitbart, anti-liberal, anti-feminist stance, was the one who added the Kirkpatrick quote and supplied the reference back in September 2014, as part of an editing sequence in which he reduced negative text and added the empty praise. Willhesucceed did not supply a URL or a page number, and his selected quotes were composed exactly the same as the book publisher's promotional work, carrying only the author name, the same wrong date, and the newspaper name, so it's clear he was taking the quote from the book promotion and not from the Wall Street Journal review, which had been published 20 years prior. The date he wrote was July 1, 1994, but Id4abel editing in 2016 found that the review was published on July 14.[6] I think it would be interesting to see more of what Kirkpatrick wrote about the book, but all we have are these two pull quotes. I challenge the editors here to bring more of the Kirkpatrick review here, to see if we can find a specific idea of Sommers that was praised, and to see if the two pull quotes are representative of the overall review. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're talking about gamergate and breitbart? I don't even know what gamergate is, but who cares if a person is pro-breitbart. If we look at your history, and find you are pro-feminism, should we get to discount your edits as biased? This is the exact reason why WP has a rule. WP:ASG You seem to have a very very hard time with that rule. WP:ASG. Always assume good faith on all editors, no matter what their personal views are. S806 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ASG doesn't mean ignore evidence in front of your eyes. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Binksternet is the only one in Talk who believes the quote is puffery. Am I correct? I think we have consensus that it should go in, and editors should feel free to restore it. Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the Melanie Kirkpatrick quote

Should the quote from Melanie Kirkpatrick be included?

She wrote that the book Who Stole Feminism? shows a "lack of a political agenda. ... Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another."

The quote is from a 1994 book review published by the Wall Street Journal. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A non-neutral request to vote on this in violation of WP:CANVASS was posted at https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/84mead/based_moms_wiki_page_is_in_the_process_of/ Carte Rouge (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • YES, I have to say, this is a blatant and obvious attempt to abuse RFC to try to overturn the consensus already achieved. You couldn't achieve consensus, so you attempt to lure other people over and try to gain consensus that way. ALL USERS, consensus has been achieved, read above topic for details. S806 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Not in the current form While a notable opinion, the current quote is cited to the WSJ, while it appears that the actual source is the book jacket. I was canvassed to vote here. The canvasassing was highly biased (specifically asked me to vote "yes,") and targeted people who were likely to vote "yes" (Gamergaters). Carte Rouge (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Ignoring the blatant attempt at bypassing consensus, the quote points out that at least according to one reviewer at the time, the author was considered apolitical and factual. Considering there seems to be an attempt to paint her otherwise, the quote is apt. KiTA (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP:PEACOCK applies. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - including this doesn't impart any information to the reader about 'based mom' (that is such a creepy nickname). PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both or neither. WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies we have. If we want to include comments from negative reviews, we need to include comments from positive reviews, given that there are some of each. Or we can write that there was a positive review in the Washington Post, and a negative review in FAIR.org. But WP:PEACOCK does not mean "only write quotes from negative reviews". --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair people don't have a problem with both or neither. It's certain people who only want negative reviews to be on the page. ProtoNexus (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partly – I could see the first part about not having a political agenda being paraphrased, because it does make a clear statement, and "lines up her facts" is pretty good, again, a statement a particular quality of the book, but "shoots one bullseye after another" is pure WP:PEACOCK. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the contents of the book, whereas the negative quotation from Flanders, while harsh, does have some specifics. If anything, we should track down the full review and see if there are other details that could be quoted. Because yes, we should reflect the reliable sources, but we need a meaningful quotation. As an aside, describing the Hudson Institute as conservative and FAIR as progressive could add some useful context. —Torchiest talkedits 20:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • I would much rather see a quote that tells the reader something specific about the ideas that Sommers presents in her book. The selected quote is book-jacket puffery which was chosen by the publisher to promote the book. It was added to the article with the same wrong date, July 1, that the book publisher used.[7] But the review is actually from July 14.[8] So the person who added it was taking it from the publisher's promotional materials, which calls into question the neutrality of the selected quote. If someone here can access the full review on Proquest, or retrieve an archived copy of the Wall Street Journal, then it would be great to offer the reader a more substantial quote, addressing one or more of the ideas in Sommers' book. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL of course it should be included. We already discussed this in extreme depth. You know the consensus is it shouldn't be removed. S806 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please verify the quote in question is accurate? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is FAIR described as "progressive" in the same location that the Hudson Institute, which is conservative, is not given an ideological identifier? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are either one of them given an ideological identifier? Seems like a dog whistle to suggest one or the other should be dismissed. KiTA (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's classic well poisoning. That's all. Lithorien Talk • Changes 15:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The tag should remain in place until someone can review the source. I'm not on Proquest; anybody who is, can you please check it out, ideally by copying the review here? Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a copyright violation? KiTA (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


'Reviewing the book in the Wall Street Journal (7/1/94), Melanie Kirkpatrick enthused: “One of the strengths of Who Stole Feminism is its lack of a political agenda…. Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another.”'
S806 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

NeilN, can you please revert to the STATUSQUO version? The language being edit warred over has been on the page over a year ([9]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christina_Hoff_Sommers for discussion if this constitutes libel against BLP. S806 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And no, it isn't status Quo, look at archive 8, this has been discussed to death, and no consensus has been achieved. It was snuck in later. S806 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I knew whatever version I protected someone was going to bring up WP:WRONGVERSION. I think everyone can live with the present version for four days. I do want to tell the editors complaining about the RFC to knock it off immediately. Seeking a broader consensus is acceptable if an editor thinks local consensus is flawed. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: You're correct. WP:IDLI but I can live with it. I feel sorry for the horse carcass though (dead, mutilated, bloody lump of horse flesh I'm too lazy to go further back). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copvio problem

Two sentences about her "numerous" TV appearances and the number of campuses she's spoken at appear copied from the listed source... which is also problematic because it's not a good, third-party source for those claims. I cannot edit this myself due to the current editing restriction; I ask that someone with editing ability handle it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks for the heads up. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ citation

@Willhesucceed: in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=next&oldid=627228811 you added a citation to the WSJ. Did you get that information directly, or did you use an intermediate source - specifically, did you get the WSJ quote from the FAIR piece? Carte Rouge (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers&oldid=830709132"