Talk:Feministing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent Edits[edit]

Hi there. I want to address some of damiens.r's recent changes.

  • I reverted her title to "founding editor".
  • Feministing has been noted as a highly trafficked feminist website by two of my sources. I would say that the NYTimes is authoritative and reliable on the subject.
Additionally, Huffington Post (on which the Liz Funk article is published) is a reliable source. It is not self-published, but features news articles and columns from a number of established writers and commentators, with editorial oversight and fact-checking. For more on this, please see this discussion on Huffington Post at the reliable sources noticeboard.
  • I de-emphasized how often the blog is mentioned as a part of the third-wave movement.
  • The accolade was not from Ms. Magazine, but from the Blogger's Choice awards. Please check the source before changing the content next time. I have left off "a number of accolades" and made the accolade more specific.

Damiens.rf, please discuss major edits such as those made last night on this page in the future, especially when you remove multiple reliable sources. Thanks. RMJ (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Liz Funk's blog is not a reliable source in regards to net traffic at all. And although I wonder how do NY Times fact-checks statements about young feminist's web preferences, we should respect the newspaper's reputations and accept it as a reliable source. In any case, NTImes says the blog is "wildly popular among young feminists" (actually, "was popular" one year ago). The article currently states that it's "one of the most popular and highly trafficked websites for young progressive women". This should be fixed.
About the Blogger's Choice Awards, the current reference only states that this blog is running for many awards, but it doesn't mentions the results. We need an up-to-date source that really states that the blog "has received a Blogger's Choice award", as the article says.
As accorded, I won't touch the article by now, letting you take care of it as you asked. Keep the good work! --Damiens.rf 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision to Purpose and Audience[edit]

Hi there, user 58.170.122.2. Thanks for contributing. I understand where you are coming from by adding men - men read Feministing too - but men are not Feministing's primary audience, which is what that referred to. Saying that it is popular among progressive women and men would be like saying it is popular among progressive and conservative young and old women and men. Conservatives, older folks, and men read Feministing, but they are not the primary audience. Young progressive women are the primary audience, as stated by the numerous references to that claim. That is why I reverted your claim, though I appreciate your point! Thank you. RMJ (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate?[edit]

To include demographic information from Alexa Internet? Novalord2 06:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. All 37 people who actually regularly visit this blog should be properly categorized.222.230.128.224 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)CynTas

Assertion and Citation Not Matching Up?[edit]

I was surprised to read that feministing hosts

discussions celebrating or encouraging abuse against men

so I followed the citation link and read the page. I found there two comments that may be what the above criticism is referring to:

I think this guy fears castration.

If by "fears" you mean "deserves," then yes.

and

someone please give this guy a copy of mary daly's "gyn/ecology" so his head will explode!!!

It seems to me that characterizing these two isolated comments a discussion doesn't accurately represent what's on the page cited. I'd suggest that it would be more fair to write something along the lines of, "The comments hosted on the site include a small minority that advocate violence against men."

I didn't change the page itself because I'm brand new around here and I'm not sure whether that would constitute an opening volley in an "editing war" and I didn't know whether this particular criticism had been discussed at length already.

--Dancingsinging (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it. It's just vandalism and constitutes, I believe, original research.

Andral (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Feministing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feministing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)