Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

contemporary feminism

Noting the lack of article about this phrase, is our prolonged use of it a good idea? The sources from this are from 1996 and 2005. Eventually what was 'contemporary feminism' at those times may no longer be considered 'contemporary'.

Is it possible to explain what kind of feminism the 'contemporary' feminism of 1996-2005 is considered to be? I'm trying to think of the long game here. In the year 2099 for example someone reading 'contemporary feminism' might not have any idea what was contemporary at the time, or might think it refers to the feminism of 2099 if they didn't pay close attention to the year of the sources. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think ensuring that the lede is accurate and consistent with RS is a more important concern that how the article will read in 2099. It makes perfect sense, is accurate, and is well reference in the context of the present, that's what's important. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: your recent quote serves to demonstrate what I'm talking about, the NewRepublic.com article says "best known for her critiques of late-twentieth-century feminism" but we are now in early-twenty-first-century, so should we still describe what she is best known for criticizing as "contemporary"? She may still be critical of feminism in the 2000s/2010s (present-contemporary) but this criticism may not be as well known for her criticism of the feminism in the 80s/90s (former-contemporary). Are there more recent sources we can use describing contemporary or post-1999 feminism? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is "yes," obviously. This source from 2014 describes her as "a former professor of philosophy who has made a name for herself as an outspoken critic of contemporary feminism," and [this] LA times op-ed (jointly written by 2 University presidents) refers to her as an "author and critic of contemporary feminism." T That's from last year. I can go on (though not right now, on mobile) - how many sources do you need to have linked before accepting that this is how she's commonly described? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

She's not critical of feminism at all, rather she disagrees with certain feminists about what is "feminist." Her argumnt regarding STEM application of Title IXis that the demographics don't support the application. Women are as intellectuslly capable as men and college demographics show that women outnumber men and receive more degrees. Further, for every field in STEM that is skeed male, there is a social or biological science that is skewed opposite. She relegates this to personal choice as opposed to athletics that have a clear dimorphic difference and a preference toward male sports (i.e., in the U.S. mens college football and mens basketball is overwhelmingly the largest sports revenue venue. women aren't prohibited from these teams but physical differences make success a difficult proposition. Whence, Title IX creates an equivalent opportunity for women in college by forcing the scholarships to be equal. In academics though, there is no difference as men and women compete in the same class. She also points out that women in STEM fields where they are in the minority, they earn more than men with same experience including straight out of college. There is more demand for women in STEM fields and salaries reflect it. Still, despite the compensation, women choose different fields. --DHeyward (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this comment relates to what we're discussing here - what you personally think Sommers stands for (or about Title IX) is irrelevant (see WP:NOTAFORUM). What matters is what the sources say. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Struggle no longer [1]. Her view, reported in reliable sources, is what I presented. --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't help, and again, does not relate to what's being discussed here. This discussion is over whether Sommers should be described as a "critic of contemporary feminism" or not. I've presented a number of sources that describe her as exactly that - the source you linked does not describe her at all, and does nothing to support your contention that that's an inaccurate description. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing doesn't matter if you're using a term which will date itself. If I found something published in 1995 saying "Bill Clinton is the best president of the century" that doesn't mean you should state that on Wikipedia, since it is only about the 20th century because as soon as the next century comes around, it is no longer accurate. For example from 2000-2007 Clinton and George W. Bush were the ONLY presidents of the (21st) century. "Contemporary" is not as specific a term but it is still time-linked. If I have an article saying "Legend of Zelda is the best selling game of the past 5 years" you would not adapt that to Wikipedia as "past 5 years" you would look when it was published and generate a range that does not change over time. Terms like "contemporary" are too loose to be of value in an encylopedia. If you MUST use it in lack of any other description it should be something like "considered temporary in XXXX" and state the year of the source. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: the issue was not the quantity of sources, but the currentness. The 2014 one you provided is good because it is actually recent. The problem is that you could have 100 sources all saying "X hates contemporary music" but 20 years later, your article should not say "X hates contemporary music" citing those sources because that music would no longer be contemporary. The term dates itself. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue. We're writing the article now not twenty years from now, it can be revised if and when RS start describing her work in more retrospective terms. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, we should pre-empt time-sensitive terms, not wait for new sources to do that. If Isaac Newton wrote "the King hates modern theatre" it would be absurd for us to say "the king hates modern theatre", we would logically say "the king hated the music of his time". We should logically replace 'contemporary' with a reference to the actual time the statement was made. The 2014 cite deals with this, but assuming that 1996/2005 ideas of feminism corresponding to 2016 ideas of feminism is OR. This isn't that hard to understand, if in 1950 someone said "the recent decade is the best decade in history" we would not keep "recent decade". The only issue with contemporary is it's a time-based term which is not based in strict measurements, but it's still time-sensitive.

There is also a problem with us asserting "she is a critic of contemporary feminism" even based on 2014, for entirely different reasons. Namely, it implies she is a critic of ALL contemporary feminism. Given that Sommers herself is contemporary and views herself as a feminist, this is clearly taking the side that she is not a feminist. It should be rephrased to indicate that people DESCRIBE her as opposing contemporary feminism. Unless Sommers herself does that, we are weighting things in favour of opposition to parrot it. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph in 'Ideas and views'

Hi. I think it's odd to write sentences such as

Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements.

Not only do women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, but they also seek out more family-friendly careers.

without direct attribution of these views to Sommers. I've attempted to put attribution to these statements twice, but have been reverted both times. I understand that the other statements in the paragraph are attributed directly to Sommers, but I don't see that as leading the reader to assume that these statements are also attributed directly to Sommers. What's the case against attributing them? Do any other editors also believe these statements should be attributed? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of any case against instating this edit, I'll implement it fairly shortly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd support that, it seems obvious to me that it should be attributed. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's much risk of readers confusing the contents of a section titled "Ideas and Views" with something other than the article subject's ideas and views. But you'll do what you feel you must, I'm sure. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Starke, seems pointless and at best clunky to read. Arkon (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider this hypothetical statement, in the section "Ideas and views" of a devout believer in the existence of hostile alien life that intends ill will to humanity.

Martians are a famously hostile race. Mr. Freeman believes that they abduct us and harvest our brains.

I'd prefer attribution on both the sentence which posits that martians exist and are famously hostile, as well as Mr. Freeman's fears of a conspiracy to harvest human brains- regardless of how obvious things may seem to some editors. With no cases against, and one agreement, I'll implement attribution. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your preference is noted. Still a clunky pointless edit that lacks consensus. Arkon (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, "Lack of consensus isn't a reason to revert", what in the world are you thinking? Arkon (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, now that this reads like a third grade paper, is it necessary to point out the studies that support what is now started with "Sommers believes that"? There are plenty. Arkon (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem: these are very controversial statements, some of them are very dubious. They have to be attributed since these are very far from unproblematic/unchallenged facts. Sorry, but NPOV trumps your personal preferences on wording (personally I think it's fine btw) Fyddlestix (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

To be specific " not only do women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, but they also seek out more family-friendly careers" is hardly controversial and is well supported. This is not just a "Sommers believes". Do try to keep up. Arkon (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The text in question also contains the statement that "Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements." Unattributed, that's a clear and obvious NPOV violation. And please leave out the juvenile "do try to keep up" type comments, they are completely unhelpful. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet again you are unable/unwilling to respond to the actual argument being made. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the argument you're making, Arkon, that the statement "women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, and also seek out more family-friendly careers" is a fact and thus does not require attribution? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The argument is that its a widely held, supported by multiple studies position. Not something that is simply a belief of Sommers. Arkon (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's an opinion, it needs to be attributed. You don't get to ignore our requirements of attribution just because more than one person holds a particular opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do try to read more carefully instead of creating pointless strawmen. You don't get to disregard facts because they are inconvenient to your POV. Arkon (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So, again- you believe that "women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, and also seek out more family-friendly careers" is a fact? I don't see why you didn't say so in response to my earlier question. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So again indeed. Let me paste my earlier comments since you seem to be having a hard time. Sigh, now that this reads like a third grade paper, is it necessary to point out the studies that support what is now started with "Sommers believes that"? There are plenty. and The argument is that its a widely held, supported by multiple studies position. Not something that is simply a belief of Sommers.. Now, unless there are any substantial responses, I will be restoring the text that you altered without consensus shortly. Arkon (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, and also clearly state why you believe that Sommer's opinion does not need to be attributed. You've said plenty, but none of it has been very clear- endeavor to educate me, not insult me. We can quite easily say that these are opinions of Sommers. We cannot, however, state them as fact because reliable sources do not. (edit conflict) PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to go over the timeline of supposed insults, I'd invite you to my talk page. As is, I've been quite clear in my statements, and you've not refuted a one. Please ping if you decide to do so. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree we must attribute everything, and leave no doubt in the reader's mind that it's Sommers' ideas that are being presented. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times now, this is not a "Sommers' idea". This is a well supported by multiple studies position. Would you like the cites? Arkon (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if other people believe the same thing - what matters is that it's controversial (ie, not a "fact" that we can state in wikipedia's voice). If you want to argue otherwise, then yes, you're going to have to produce some reliable sources that support your position. What "multiple studies" are you referring to? And are you sure that those studies support the exact wording of Sommers' argument? Fyddlestix (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

conservative think tank

@Fyddlestix: the recent reversion got me thiking, since AEI does have its own article where stuff like this can be mentioned, what is the need for mentioning it here when info pertaining to the institute is easily accessible and better debated and sourced there? The introductory sentence mentioning her current employment is one thing but do we really need to elaborate on explaining it when the organization has its own article? 64.231.169.3 (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

GG section

@Fyddlestix: checking the history further back another revert, good catch on it not belonging under early life. Should it go under 'ideas and views' or possible a new section? Agree on better sources. Particularly since just one was used twice. I don't know how reliable it is but at least I can have a go at formatting it if it is admissible in any way:

Kristol, William. "Conversation with Christina Hoff Sommers". ConversationsWithBillKristol.org. 

The problem I see with this link, while useful, is it is more like an aggregator which simply hosts links to a main video, and then I think possibly the same thing divided into 6 smaller chapters. I think perhaps cite-videos on the chapters (for more specific and less resource-intense loading) would be ideal if someone wants to rely on citing this for the interview. Probably chapter 6 would be the most applicable considering the chapter titles. I probably won't get to listening to these for weeks though if someone else wants to have a go. ?t= on YT cites are our friends everyone. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)