Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's superiority

Women's superiority

Women's superiority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is being renamed (moved) from "Women's superiority" to "Gynocracy", per posts of Jan. 1–2, 2011, through 2:52a UTC, below. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this page's creation, I and another editor have been discussing it on the talkpage with the creator, because it was well-footnoted and had the potential to be a decent article if secondary sources on the topic (not just on the specific texts) could be found. But the creator has basically refused to find such sources or to understand why such sources need to be found, my limited research hasn't found such sources, and as a consequence the article is, however well-footnoted, a big piece of WP:OR. Roscelese (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. There is no evidence that this is a notable topic. I thought the article would be about why women are better than men, not about theories of women running societies in the speculative past and proposed future. Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• As the creator, I support keeping the article.
• Several sections present women's superiority, each relying on an author's own words.
  • The Women's Sovereignty subsection is principally based on Scapegoat, by Andrea Dworkin. Scapegoat is a secondary source. In turn, its relevant content is analyzed in The Guardian, a secondary source, and separately in Palestine Solidarity Review, another secondary source. All are secondary sources because, among their qualities, they are at least one level removed from immediate personal involvement.
  • The Matriarchies and Statehood subsection is principally based on Lesbian Nation, by Jill Johnston. While it is a primary source, it is analyzed on point by Kris Franklin and Sara E. Chinn in the Review of Law & Social Change, a secondary source.
  • The Mythical matriarchy subsection is principally based on four sources:
    • by Cynthia Eller, Relativizing the Patriarchy, a secondary source
    • by Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, secondary
    • by Starhawk, Dreaming the Dark, a primary source
    • by Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon, a secondary source
  • The Factual and Conceptual Matriarchy subsection is principally based on Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler, a journalist. The source is secondary.
  • The Second-Wave Feminism subsection is based on Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom, by Linda M. G. Zerilli, which is a secondary source, and The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, by Cynthia Eller, and that is also a secondary source.
  • The Organizations section is based on Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols, and Feminist Thought, by Rosemarie Putnam Tong. Both are secondary.
  • The Protohistorical and Historical Peoples section is based principally on Mothers and Amazons, by Helen Diner, a secondary source, and her work is partly analyzed in Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler, also secondary.
  • The Criticisms section is principally based on six sources:
    • by Andrea Dworkin, Biological Superiority, which can be treated as a primary source
    • by Christine Stansell, The Feminist Promise, a secondary source
    • by Frances Bartkowski, Feminist Utopias, secondary
    • by J. M. Adovasio et al., The Invisible Sex, secondary
    • by Elaheh Rostami Povey, Feminist Contestations of Institutional Domains in Iran, secondary
    • by Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, a primary source
• I think the nominator may be suggesting something other than a lack of secondary sources. The nominator may instead be suggesting that a source must itself be cited in another source.
  • The Women's Sovereignty subsection meets that test, as Scapegoat is analyzed in The Guardian and in Palestine Solidarity Review.
  • The Matriarchies and Statehood subsection also meets that test, as Lesbian Nation is analyzed in the Review of Law & Social Change.
  • The Protohistorical and Historical Peoples section also meets that test, as Mothers and Amazons is partly analyzed in Drawing Down the Moon.
• Not all subsections meet that test, however. Nor do they have to meet it, because Wikipedia does not require that a secondary source be supported in another secondary source before being cited; otherwise, not much could be published in WP. Even primary sources may be used, as long as they're used with care. If source-citing sources don't exist or aren't found, the sources that are provided may be judged for their own qualities. Those sources not cited in other sources are all reliable and verifiable. Some are by academics and one is by a journalist. They're from credible publishers and some are peer-reviewed. None of the sources have, on their own, been criticized in this discussion except for, in some cases, not having been cited in other sources.
• The nominator may be asserting yet something else: that all the content must come from one secondary source, or that it can come from multiple sources but that all of those sources must also be cited in a single secondary source. If that were a WP policy, most major articles would have to be deleted. Many of the articles that meet that test are tagged as lacking sufficient sources. If a major article met that test and then new information was announced, such as a new scientific discovery, it could only be added to WP if one source gave the new discovery and also gave the other information found in the WP article, and that's unusual for news, which is usually announced with little background. The result is that adding the new discovery to WP would require deleting most of the article even if the discovery didn't contradict most other content.
• The nominator has suggested that the article covers very disparate subjects. It does not. Within the rubric of women's superiority as an article title, the sources do offer diverse views, but women's sovereignty, female statehood, women monopolizing government, political and economic superiority for women, Womenland, sacerdotal, political, and economic female dominion, harmony of statehood and biology through the remembered majesty of women, female-ruled societies, female superiority, female dominance, the gynocratic age, female-dominated cultures, female supremacy, a female-dominant model, female hegemony, political rule of women, women's power as superior to men's, government and power in the hands of women, women holding a much greater share of power than they do now, a society where women had institutional authority, female rule, and a strong gynocracy are expressions, not of identical ideas, but of ideas all close enough to the article title to be in the same article.
• I had proposed dividing major subsections into their own articles and turning Women's Superiority into a disambiguation page, but I now don't think that's a good idea, because that would effectively eliminate having a unifying lede. If a unifying lede were to be written into the dab page, we may as well keep the present article as a single article. I had thought writing the article lede's first sentence would risk too much synthesis, but that turns out not to be a problem. I added this as the lede's first sentence: "Several themes have been expressed by authors, scholars, practitioners, critics, and others." That's followed by some quotes as examples. I don't think that lede has forbidden synthesis.
• On notability, there are already enough sources to support it. Nonetheless, I anticipate re-adding some (not all) of the sources I recently deleted, since their inclusion would add more to notability. Under the circumtances, it is probably appropriate to annotate them as having had less or no reception in other sources, in order that readers may more accurately weigh them in comparison to other sources, but all are by people well known in their fields and all are nontrivial on point. I do not plan to re-add Joreen's writing, as it's a primary source and its topical connection is probably tenuous.
• History, prehistory, and the future are not barred as article topics if otherwise notable. Aspirations for controlling government have been a significant part of feminist discourse for decades, as shown by the present sources.
• In a book titled on moral superiority of women, its author expressed doubt about the title, arguing inside the book that instead there were scientifically valid differences of which some might be advantageous to women. As a scientific source, that book may be out of date; I haven't checked the latest edition lately. I will look for material in that subtopic, including a critique.
• For the larger topic, I have searched for more sources, both by doing my own research systematically online and selectively in books and by asking the nominator and readers of the talk page to suggest any sources they might think useful. No one has an obligation to come up with any and they may be busy, but I have asked and they're free to do so. Often, when other editors suggested sources at other times, I've retrieved them, even if it took me weeks to get them. I'm still open to suggestions for specific sources.
• Nick Levinson (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's very difficult to evaluate this one because the article itself doesn't explain what its scope is intended to be, and the comments above from the creator, if anything, seem to make the topic even more slippery. Unless we get a clear explanation of what information this article is supposed to provide to the reader in addition to any of our other articles about feminism then this has to be a delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. The lede's opening is now this: "Some people have argued that women are superior to men, culturally and/or biologically, and some, including some feminists and some nonfeminists, have further argued that women therefore have had, do have, or should have more power in society. Within this general concept, several themes have been expressed by authors, scholars, practitioners, critics, and others." Nick Levinson (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• For notability, I've re-added on Phyllis Chesler, Monique Wittig, Mary Daly, and Robin Morgan, the last two much more briefly than in an earlier revision. Phyllis Chesler had written of public institutions and thus her work does belong here. Monique Wittig wrote of men staying, with no suggestion of staying only temporarily, thus of women ruling men. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete This piece is a synthesis of several loosely related topics. It seems like an annotated reading list for a feminist studies seminar, rather than an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This is a fascinating and incredibly insightful academic article. It is utterly ingenious, the arguments presented in the article are quite strong, and I am glad I got to read it. HOWEVER, Wikipedia is not the place for new insight. Because it is not truly peer reviewed, it is not the proper venue for works of this nature. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to put forth new knowledge but simply to record already agreed upon knowledge. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's not new; it's sourced and sourced again. If anyone sees synthesis, please point to it so I can edit out specific words. All of the article is about perceiving women as superior to men and aspiring to act on it, but if there's a proposal for a better article title, please offer it. If these are so very different, then the solution is dividing into multiple articles, but then we'd need an introductory article on women's superiority or another overarching topic of similar scope from which the rest can reasonably be linked without violating another Wikipedia policy, in which case please suggest an overarching topic I should develop by an article title. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. It does include a lot of interesting and well sourced information. Hence this is not an obvious OR. Yes, it sounds like a review article. But it is OK to combine different materials on the same subject in the same article. We are doing this all the time. This is not WP:SYN which means making logical conclusions by a wikipedian (A+B=>C). Biophys (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge 1st half with Separatist feminism, merge 2nd half with Matriarchy. Sound reasonable? There do seem to be some WP:SYNTH issues with the current article, but much of the material could be useful elsewhere. I might change my vote to Keep if sources that are specifically devoted to the topic of Women's superiority are identified and used. Right now, it just looks like a synthesis of bits and pieces of various sources about related topics. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, the section on Women's Sovereignty definitely belongs in Separatist feminism, not here. The primary source for that section, Andrea Dworkin, doesn't even support the idea of Women's superiority, so this is definitely a WP:SYNTH problem. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a book devoted specifically to this topic: The Natural Superiority of Women by Ashley Montagu, but strangely, it isn't used in the article. Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• • The two mergers wouldn't work because the article is not at all about separatism and matriarchy is about mothers, whereas huge numbers of women are nonmaternal.
  • A load of results in Google mention women's superiority but are useless, being blogs and other too-minor sources. Meanwhile, the sources I did use are about aspirations and discussions that are closely similar and that can legitimately be grouped together. If they should be separated, we'd still need an overarching article to link to them with a summary of their relationship. They're not that different from each other.
  • It's not synthesis to quote multiple sources that use different words or even to paraphrase sources. I quoted extensively, specifically to avoid risking synthesis. Everything in the article is supported by the sources cited and statements are separated from each other. I quoted or cited whatever was on point in a source so there wouldn't be just bits and pieces but would have editorial integrity and be authorized by the sources.
  • The Women's Sovereignty subsection is not at all about feminist separatism, and the lede says that separatism is a different topic. Feminist separatism is for women only, because men would be absent. What Andrea Dworkin proposed included men as present and subject to women's jurisdiction, thus not separatist. Both of the sources that discussed her book, The Guardian and PSR, confirm that men were to be included.
  • If you have a source that says that she, then or later, disagreed with what she wrote, i.e., that she changed her mind, please cite it. I did not include any source that was later contradicted by the author, thus I did not include The SCUM Manifesto, as Valerie Solanas later said something that undermined it.
  • The Natural Superiority of Women, by Ashley Montagu, has three problems. One is that, as scholarship, it's very dated, and almost certainly outdated, the last edition being from 1975. Another is that, in at least one of the editions, the author distanced his position from the title's, i.e., he disagreed with it as a description of what the book is about. And he did not argue that women should lead a government; the article was originally titled as feminist superiority, so the book was off-point, although now it could be appropriate, or a more up-to-date book could be. His was an interesting argument, but with a difficulty: it's an essentialist or biological argument, thus readily criticizable, the same way that arguing that men's bigger brains made men superior until someone found out that elephants had even bigger brains and no one was asking elephants to take over humans' jobs. I intend to mention something along the lines of biological superiority when I find an adequate source, but probably that could get its own article because of the volume of nonreproductive biological differences between the sexes that have been found (some disputed) in recent years. I also expect that many sources won't posit that biological difference means superiority, but only difference, so it'll likely be a nonscientist who argues that biological difference means superiority. I'll probably also cite Ashley Montagu's book as historically important on the theme even though outdated, since it was widely acknowledged as an early modern contribution, against a tide of theses that women were inferior. I also am considering finding a source on women's moral superiority, so to speak, another problematic area, as it often entangles religious complexities and is tied to women's sociological inferiority, and that tie needs addressing; but if each religion has its own idea of women's moral superiority, and probably each one does except for those that deny the existence of any, then moral superiority may require a separate article, due to length. Given the current title of this article, biological and moral superiority should at least be mentioned, when sourced; I just don't have sources for those two angles yet. But they're in my plans, unless they involve so much content that they need separate articles, in which case I may create just stubs for those two. But at least that'll provide a framework for other editors to expand. And other Wikipedia articles already written may already suffice to cover those angles, in which case I'll only need to link to them.
  • Nick Levinson (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin didn't change her mind. She has never, to my knowledge, suggested that "women are superior to men" (as the topic is defined in your lead sentence). Thus the context in which you are presenting her work is misleading and mischaracterizing in my opinion. What she proposed would perhaps be better characterized as "Feminist separatism" rather than "Separatist feminism", but it's still much closer to "Separatist feminism" than "Women's superiority". I think a section on Women's sovereignty would be logical in Separatist feminism and you would just need to explain that some proposed scenarios would tolerate feminist men. If you can point me to any quote of Dworkin's in which she proposes that women are superior to men, I'll withdraw my objection, but otherwise, I stand by it. I'm fairly familiar with Dworkin's work (I just wrote about her in the Sexism article a few weeks ago) and I was rather surprised to see her included in this topic (although her opinions do seem to get mischaracterized rather often). Kaldari (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing some of Dworkin's writing on the subject it seems that she adamantly opposes the idea of women's superiority (even more than I initially suspected):

• "Amidst the generally accurate description of male crimes against women came this ideological rot, articulated of late with increasing frequency in feminist circles: women and men are distinct species or races (the words are used interchangeably); men are biologically inferior to women;"
• "The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears... Is there no haunting, restraining memory of the blood spilled, the bodies burned, the ovens filled, the peoples enslaved, by those who have assented throughout history to the very same demagogic logic?"

Those passages seem pretty unambiguous to me. In light of them, I imagine Dworkin would find some offense at being included in this article. Kaldari (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand your claim that matriarchies only relate to mothers. Matriarchy is a much broader collection of ideas than what you suggest, and just as patriarchy is often understood to mean male-rule (rather than father-rule), the equivalent is often true of matriarchy as well. Kaldari (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I recognize the quotes you added without a citation, since I supplied the citation in the article. The quotes you added date from 1977. Scapegoat dates from 2000. The earlier position cannot refute the later position, because people are permitted to change over time. And, in her 2000 work, she did not ground her new position on biological determinism, so her change may not be so large or so surprising.

I quote her from 2000: "One needs either equality or political and economic superiority." "'The Jews got a country because they had been persecuted, said that enough was enough, decided what they wanted and went out and fought for it. Women should do the same.'" She informally named the proposed place "'Womenland'". The other secondary sources about her work describe the place as "this women's country" and as "a 'state' in which 'females rule supreme above males' if gender equality is not imposed." More quotes are in the article, sourced, and the sum total correctly characterizes her work. Her proposal refers to men being allowed entry and residence in the country under the women's "sovereignty" she proposed. Her proposal was neither feminist separatism nor separatist feminism because it included men, not only feminist men, and either set of men being included would make it integrationist, unequally so but still integrationist, i.e., nonseparatist. By definition, separatism that is feminist excludes men; to combine the content against the definition and without her having used such terminology or a similar concept would be synthesizing, which is why I'm not doing that. I think in earlier years she might not, probably would not, have taken such a position, but that hardly matters, since eventually she did seek a Womenland, with, as she asked, "control of a boundary further away from their bodies, a defended boundary". And the other authors arrived at their respective positions when they did, employing the terms they chose.

On the meaning of matriarchy, see Margot Adler quoted in the article as saying that "[l]iterally" it means "government by mothers". She discusses the widening of the meaning but also a widening that dilutes it away from governance, too, often omitting 'power' from the definition. In this article, where matriarchy is discussed, it is about government, thus is much closer in meaning to the nonmatriarchal discussions, with which it belongs.

Patriarchy and matriarchy denote at the simplest level as parallel words but don't stay that way, just as with man and woman, boy and girl, etc. Patriarchy is very much, albeit not entirely, about fatherhood because patriarchy is about organizing the society and the patriarch's family so that the mother is inferior to the father and so that in a childless family that wifely inferiority is mimicked, and patriarchy is organized to include delegating early childraising to the mother, and even if there will be no children the woman will usually be raised by her family to be a mother just in case, and thus won't have as much power as if the genders had equality. That inequality shapes the difference between matriarchy and patriarchy, in which one is about having dominant power and the other hardly at all. Thus, combining matriarchalist discussions that are about government into matriarchy that isn't would tear apart governance topics that belong together. Cross-linking articles, on the other hand, is fine.

On the lede: "Some people have argued that women are superior to men." You probably agree that some have, given your citation of Ashley Montagu. Also in the lede: "Among modern feminist writers, Andrea Dworkin argued that women should fight to create their own country". That's authorized by the quote above.

You're proposing to move some content out but that still leaves a need for an overarching description because of their commonality, that, in some views, women should govern women and men. That commonality needs accommodation. Please suggest another mechanism for providing it. I don't think a dab will do it, because that would need a lede, too, bringing us back to having an article anyway.

Nick Levinson (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the Dworkin quotes that you provided show that Dworkin believes that women are superior to men. As a philosophical argument she proposed women being able to govern a territory autonomously and compared this with Jews being able to govern themselves within Isreal. She is not even remotely suggesting that women are superior to men or that Jews are superior to the rest of the world. Characterizing her position as such is absolutely disingenuous. She is basically just proposing that women create a safe space where they are free of male domination, violence, exploitation, etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with women being superior and does not represent a change of position from her earlier work. If you don't think her proposal would be appropriate under Separatist feminism that's understandable, but it definitely doesn't belong here. As for Matriarchy, I'm aware of the literal definition. The word is often used in other senses, however. Your own article uses the term 66 times! Surely some of that material could find a home in the matriarchy article, perhaps with a bit of explanation on the different uses of the term. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

She's saying that sovereignty should be women's, not men's and not gender-neutral. I'm sorry you missed that. "[B]eing able to govern a territory autonomously" is superiority, precisely. It's not the only superiority there is; but if mostly or only women govern that territory, then women are being superior. France is governed by the French; thus, the French are superior in France and the French head of state is superior to the average French citizen. The CEO of a company is superior to an accountant there. Andrea Dworkin believed and communicated that women should govern in Womenland. Therefore, she believed and communicated that they should be superior. Women's superiority is inherent in women's sovereignty. I have no idea where you got a notion about Jews being superior to the rest of the world; you didn't get it from the article or from me, I don't recall that being in her book, and I have no idea why it's in your response here. But we perhaps can agree that Jews govern Israel. Consequently, Jews are superior in Israel, secularly superior, quite apart from any theological claim in Judaism or Christianity. Your claim of disingenuousness applies, by your terms, to a statement no one made. My claim about what Andrea Dworkin wrote and said was straightforward, accurate, and quoted. More clarity is in definitions of sovereignty: by Webster's Third New International, including "supreme power esp. over a body politic", "freedom from external control", and "controlling influence"; by Shorter Oxford Eng. Dict. ([4th] ed.), including "[s]upremacy in respect of ... efficacy", "[s]upremacy in respect of power or rank; supreme authority", "[t]he position, rank, or power of a supreme ruler or monarch", "[t]he supreme controlling power of a community not under monarchical government; absolute and independent authority of a State, community, etc.", and "[a] territory ... existing as an independent State"; by American Heritage Dict. (3d ed.), including "[s]upremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state", "complete independence and self-government", and "[a] territory existing as an independent state"; and by Random House Webster's Unabridged Dict. (2d ed.), including "supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community." 'Supremacy' is in the definitions in all four of these dictionaries. Hence, 'superiority' is included in sovereignty. We may assume Wikipedia readers will basically know that, and therefore the article relying on dictionary definitions is permissible.

Not seeking just a "safe space", Andrea Dworkin wanted nationhood for women. A safe space is comparatively vague, and often refers to a building or room from which one can temporarily keep others possibly at bay for a few hours so one may unwind, reflect, and regroup before facing the men. Her proposal certainly includes a safe space, but she wants much more: sovereignty. A typical psychotherist or friend may offer a safe space in an office. That psychotherapist or friend, however, cannot offer sovereignty. Andrea Dworkin wanted sovereignty.

Feel free to re-explore whether Scapegoat represents a change in position from her earlier work (you say it doesn't), but I will be surprised if you find as strong a call for sovereignty in her earlier work, for she would hardly have gone to the trouble of writing it all over again. It certainly was not anywhere in the essay from which you irrelevantly quoted without citing. If you find an earlier source in which she foreshadowed Scapegoat and the Guardian interview, please post it so it can be added. If there's no such earlier source, then, as far as both of us know, Scapegoat is new work and a new assertion for women's superiority. It fits squarely under the article's present title.

I counted occurrences of the string "matriarch" in this article. I found 58, not the 66 you wrote of, and, of the 58, 16 are inside quotations, 14 are in source titles, 8 are in redundant passages (two in the lede and more in section titles and the table of contents) and one's a category, leaving 19 that I wrote as substantive. That's not disproportionate.

The Matriarchy article's consensus, if it's not outdated, seems to exclude feminists as sources; viz., the 2007 Talk section on opposing views. The article would need a lengthy new section on feminism on matriarchy as a governance system, and the article's existing editors may claim that only anthropologists can decide on that kind of content, sending me back to a feminism article space. If the feminist sources are seen as valid only for criticism of matriarchy, it will have to be apostrophized, which is not appropriate for the encyclopedia.

Clearly, at any rate, matriarchy insofar as it is government by women and women's sovereignty as government by women are so close conceptually that they belong together. More than that: With matriarchy often being defined as lacking power (we agree that multiple definitions are in use), feminist matriarchy has to be distinguished from powerless matriarchy. I don't plan to add feminist matriarchy without a source saying the phrase, but the matriarchy in the article is feminist because it is premised on women having at least as much power as men have, and women's sovereignty is feminist, too. The matriarchy article may not accept both and need not. A home article for both is needed.

Alternative: Would it be better to title the article as Gynocracy? That's been a redirect to Matriarchy. Gynecocracy or Gynarchy is also feasible but less common; I'd opt for Gynocracy. Under any of the three, the so-called moral and natural superiorities would not be added, as no longer relevant, although they can go into other articles as apropos. Under one of these titles, the commonality would be supported and there'd be room for expansion as more sources are found.

Nick Levinson (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I brought up "Jewish superiority" is because Dworkin compared Womanland with Isreal. Imagine if someone started an article called Jewish superiority and started it with the sentence "Some people have argued that Jews are superior to non-Jews, culturally and/or biologically, and some, including some Zionists and some non-Zionists, have further argued that Jews therefore have had, do have, or should have more power in society." And then they started off the article with a bunch of quotes from Barrack Obama supporting Jewish sovereignty in Isreal. It would be roughly parallel to the situation you've created here. Does Obama believe in "Jewish superiority"? By your logic, yes. Would that article survive a day on Wikipedia? Of course not, because the concept of "superiority" is not just an innocent dictionary term as you frame it. It is a word that inspires wars and genocide, thus you don't just casually imply that the most powerful person in the world believes in "Jewish superiority". You would get nominated for deletion faster than you can blink. If you want to have an article about Women's sovereignty or Gynocracy, that sounds like a reasonable idea to me. However, If you're going to have an article whose scope is defined in rather extreme terms, as this one is judging by the first sentence, you need to be well sure you're not roping in feminists who wouldn't otherwise touch the topic with a ten foot pole. Not only are you giving people the wrong impression of their work (however unintentional), but your potentially violating the WP:BLP policy as well. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I did some searching through Google Books to see if Gynocracy would be a suitable title for an encyclopedia article. It seems that most of the sources use it as a synonym of matriarchy, but there are some that use it as a distinct concept. For example, if you look up Gynocracy in the Dictionary Of Sociology, it just says "See matriarchy". Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The discussion above serves to underline the fact that this whole concept is original research, because nobody can point to any secondary sources that unambiguously support the basic premises of this article, so I stand by my previous opinion in favour of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe we have a solution, then. I'll move the whole thing to Gynocracy soon, absent an interim objection.

• Responding to other points: That may be Wikipedia's policy regarding Jewish superiority, but I haven't seen such a policy anywhere, and Israel and more than one of its neighbors are at war, whereas women are not, not in anything like the same sense. I have no idea that President Obama said anything on point, but he probably has spoken in assurance of Israel's right to exist and it is a sovereign state. In theology at least, there is a claim of Jews being a chosen people and I have heard a Catholic cardinal on the radio saying the same thing and there is much U.S. Christian evangelist support for Israel's right to exist, so the claim may have secondary-source published theology behind it. If it does, and if it didn't have an on-and-off bombing war closely connected with it, I would assume someone besides me would write such an article, albeit perhaps under another title, such as one about being chosen. I don't know enough to write it and am not likely to in the future. But, in general, when war is not involved, topics are not dropped because they're offensive to many readers. One topic comes to mind that has been stated as grounds for murder by proponents of death and yet it is covered in Wikipedia in multiple locations that make it easy to find. In a few minutes, I found an article in the English Wikipedia and two categories in Wikimedia Commons. If that's a concern for you and you'd like me to email the titles to you or post them on your talk page, let me know soon (I made a note at home listing them). But if someone writes an article on male supremacy that collects sources to the effect that men ought to be in charge and swinging clubs and women should just do as they're told by boys and men and male toddlers and male parrots and should be shot otherwise (supposing such sources exist), I do not object to that scope for an article, even though I object to male supremacy itself and its practice.

• A BLP issue that could arise is if one of the authors at the time or later contradicted their own work. None have, to my knowledge. Valerie Solanas (who's dead) did, but I didn't use her work in the article. Quotes are extensive enough to encompass all of the conditions authors may have attached to their core statements, even when the authors' works are secondary, so as not to risk misrepresentation in Wikipedia, and thus avoid making a BLP problem on that point. The description about an organization doesn't present a BLP issue, since the internal disagreement was also presented and as coming from the founder as conditionally disagreeing. If there's another BLP issue, please let me know.

• The lede sentences you referred to were written to prevent synthesis, thus are conceptually rather wide. Narrower nonsynthetic sentences would be rather long, probably clause-laden, thus harder to read, so I didn't write them. Instead, after the first sentences, examples indicate what's in the article's body. That structure seems to be the best all-around compromise.

• Some clauses are in the lede because their absence seemed to be understood by some readers as meaning that the quoted authors had taken stands they had not and that by the article's silence were being ascribed to them without authority. The clauses clarify that unstated views are not being attributed to them.

• The article being its own article solves another problem. When the subject was included in another feminism article and also had extensive quotations, it was perceived as getting undue weight, in contrast to the majority view by far, which is for equality. The content included the extensive quotations to preclude denial that the words had ever been said (it was hotly denied by several editors until someone besides me looked them up). The subject does not have undue weight in its own article. As a result, another article can briefly cover superiority without undue weight there.

• I have clarified the lede to add to the first paragraph that most feminists support equality and not superiority. If that's where a BLP issue was, viz., that most other feminists wouldn't want to be associated with a superiority claim because it's contentious, that should resolve it.

• I'll wait a bit to see if there's comment on Gynocracy as a new title, before implementing a move. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just saw the latest post before mine (it was not quite a midair collision but close). Thank you for the research. It looks like Gynocracy is probably the title, then. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• All except one of the above posters having contributed to Wikipedia since my last reply above (the exception being Biophys, who favored keeping the article) and those I know of from elsewhere as probably wanting the article deleted not yet having participated in this discussion, I assume no one objected to the latest solution, so I'm implementing it, with preservation of the AfD notice on the article. If I'm unable to move the article myself (the destination is a redirect with an extra history step), an administrator may be asked to do so. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as the editor who nominated this article for deletion, I don't care what you call it, since you've still failed to find secondary sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Approximately 17 secondary sources were listed, against four that were primary, in my first response to this AfD nomination. I'm happy to respond to any outstanding issues. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The mere fact of something being a secondary source does not make it a secondary source on the concept, which you should have realized since I've explained it about ten times. Have a nice evening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources are secondary for what is presented in the article, which accords with Wikipedia's definition. What I think you were asking for was a single source that stated everything in the article. That's not a Wikipedia standard, and if it were most articles would be deleted. Articles depending on only one source are subject to tagging for insufficient sourcing. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No dude, that's not what I asked for. I don't know what you hope to gain by misrepresenting my advice to you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you now say I misrepresent your advice, the response will be point-by-point. It's unfortunately not brief, but I tried to keep it concise.

On the talk page, you originally wrote, "You need to provide a secondary source that connects these entirely discrete and completely philosophically different pieces of writing, most of which relate very little to each other and some of which do not even relate to the purported subject of the article." That's calling for one source ("a ... source" is one source) that cites ("connects") all of the quoted authors on the points they made. Later, you wrote, "you can't draw connections between texts without a reliable secondary source having done so." It's not necessary that one author write about both Jill Johnston and Andrea Dworkin on point, nor that one author write in one place about all of the key authors in the article. The topical connection is close and clear and key authors are backed by secondary sources analyzing what the former wrote. You also wrote, "the ... sources ... don't comment on their relationship to one another". They don't have to; if they did have to, most Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted and most of the rest couldn't be updated with news. You also wrote about "texts proposing one ["female-ruled state"], texts imagining one, texts describing ones that might have already happened", but that's not such a disparity that a single source is required to explain or validate their similarity; all are about female-ruled states and their synonymous concepts and that's what the article is about. The article is not mainly about imagination versus reality. It is about gynocracy, by whatever name and as conceptualized by several authors. You also wrote, "[t]he first priority ... should be finding secondary sources that comment on this subject". Again, that someone have commented on multiple authors in a single source is not required and one source commenting on each concept is permissible and that's already met. Later, you wrote that the lack was of "finding a secondary source, or several secondary sources, that link these things together. (You've found secondary sources on individual texts, but that's only part of the problem.)" Again, these things are not that different. You've understood that already. Since they're not that different, finding a writer who brings these named authors together is not needed. Later, you wrote, "You've yet to provide a source for this article that indicates that "women's superiority" is a thing. (Specifically, a thing which encompasses the diverse philosophies represented in your writing - because the Eller, for example, is a useful source, but all content sourced to it could be merged to matriarchy.)" Whether a source could support more than one article is not relevant to whether it does the job in this one, and this one is about, as Cynthia Eller discusses, "female-ruled ... societies", and not simply matriarchies, which compose a subset. (Thank you for acknowledging that the Cynthia Eller source is useful.) And again, you're saying one source ("a source") must support all of the other sources ("encompass ... the diverse philosophies"). Later, you wrote, "you need sources that link all the things you're talking about together. Matriarchy has been written about in secondary sources, that's why there's an article on it. Do you have, or are you even considering finding, a source that brings in this other stuff?" Matriarchy has been written about in secondary sources, but so has this article's topic; what you're asking for is that the sources be repeated in other sources, and a look through the Matriarchy article shows that it generally does not do that extra step for most of its content, and I don't see it nominated for deletion. For instance, the Matriarchy#Woman-centered as matristic section names three authors and provides exactly one supporting reference, which is to one author's website which says much less about one of the other two than the article says and does not mention the other of the other two at all (I Googled the entire site, not just searching the linked page, which does not mention the other two at all). The animals section gives five sources, each for a different animal, but apparently without giving a source that repeats those five. Evidently, from this sampling, the article you offer as a model largely does not meet the standard you seek for this one. Later, you wrote, "secondary source [perhaps sources] [must] link ... historical matriarchy to the Dworkin and other texts". They're not that disparate as governance concepts, since the matriarchy this article is focused on is in government. They're both gynocratic. You wrote of "feminists imagining societies where women rule" if matriarchies are not discussed. So, for the other gynocracies, you agree on the commonality, and then you want "secondary sources linking together the texts you discuss" even when you recognize the commonality from the article. That's beyond Wikipedia's policies. Later, you wrote, "It's not inconceivable that some secondary source might have traced this concept through Gilman, Dworkin, others, so I think a few more days for interested parties to find such sources wouldn't be amiss." Again, one source tracing through all of the others is well beyond Wikipedia's requirements. And to require it for Charlotte Perkins Gilman when I only cited her to explain a criticism that mentions Herland, not she or Herland being authority for gynocracy by any name, means that you're requiring that a source cite even minor figures in order for major thinkers to be cited, and that's even farther beyond Wikipedia's standards. Later you wrote, starting by quoting me, "'It is not necessary to find one source that supports both matriarchy and women's sovereignty' - Er, yes, dude, it is. That's how Wikipedia works." It's not necessary to cite a secondary source that cites a secondary source that makes the point. Wikipedia wants secondary sources; it does not require that a secondary source cite a secondary source in order for either to support content. Later, you wrote, "If you ... make this article only about Modern Feminists Imagining Societies Politically Dominated By Women - which would seem to be quite specific - you would still need a secondary source attesting that this theme exists." That was in response to my proposal to make one article on women's sovereignty, for example, so you're saying that even an article on exactly that would require not only the Andrea Dworkin source, which is secondary, and the Guardian and PSR sources, which are both also secondary, but also yet another secondary source would have to be cited and would have to back the three already offered. Even with the topic divided, you give no clue as to when this chain of sources would be long enough to suffice. That's why I'd rather rely on existing standards: one source is necessary, arguably two, and a third is nice, but the lack of a third or fourth does not disqualify the article. Later, when I asked "if an article were titled Women Monopolizing Government and had its sourcing," you said that seems no different than with the then-current article as a whole, and thus subject to "your complete failure to cite any secondary sources on this concept." I had cited Helen Diner, whose book was secondary, and gave Margot Adler's analysis (also secondary) of Helen Diner's work, thus the one was backed up by another. Later, you wrote, "in order to create an article on women's sovereignty, you must find a secondary source that has already done the synthesis." Two secondary sources, The Guardian and PSR, each did that and you still wanted more. That's beyond the policy. If I've missed any of your statements on point, please let me know.

In your nominating statement above, you wrote the need was for "secondary sources on the topic (not just on the specific texts)" and later you wrote it was for one "secondary source on the concept" (perhaps more than one source this time). The article has that several times over. When authors use near-synonyms (which is what most synonyms are), it's not necessary that one writer write about all of the other authors who have written on the topic.

Hence, when I wrote, "[w]hat I think you were asking for was a single source that stated everything in the article" and you replied "[n]o dude, that's not what I asked for. I don't know what you hope to gain by misrepresenting my advice to you.", there's no misrepresentation. You did ask for a single source at times; at other times you allowed for multiple sources but only if they connected all the specific major texts and minor ones as well, using identical language or authors' names, going beyond the need for secondary sources. You specified a standard not even met in the Matriarchy article you offered as a model, although that article may meet Wikipedia's standards.

Nick Levinson (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected two grammatical errors, in the sentence on the Googled site and in a sentence pairing matriarchy and women's sovereignty: 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC))