Talk:National Organization for Women
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Organization for Women article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 30, 2016.|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
Description of purpose
Someone has said the original purpose scrawled on a napkin was ""to take action to make women sexier in the eyes of men, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof to ensure the happiness of the male species." This cannot possibly be the case and perhaps someone better at editing things than me can correct it. I am not quite familiar with how this all works but I thought it important to point it out. Elizabeth199 09:25, 30 December 2008
Lack of "Controversies" Section
A decent and balanced Wikipedia article often has a "controversies/critisism" section of the article, especially when the subject matter is an established organization or individual. I can think of a few controversies off the top of my head which are easily Goggled:
- Texas NOW Chapter allegations of fundraising and campaigning for notorious child killer, Andrea Yates.
- Recognition of Valerie Solanas as an integral contributor to feminism despite publishing a famous manifesto which could constitute criminal hate speech in many jurisdictions.
- Exageration and misrepresention of statistics to suit their positions.
- Complete omission of comment on high-profile incidents of false rape allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billturner1983 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- No. Controversy/critisism sections are discouraged per consensus. Any well sourced notable controversies should be woven into the article where they apply. Such sections only act as a coatrack for endless additions of trivial gripes.--Charles (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Is that just a left-wing thing? Most of the Wikipedia articles I read have a controversies section. And NOW has plenty of controversies which would justify its own section, perhaps maybe it's own page. Is there any rule against me starting a dedicated "Controversies Involving NOW" page? They certainly have one for right-wing organizations like Wal-Mart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billturner1983 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Other stuff exists explains why the existence of such sections elsewhere does not justify having one here. I very much doubt whether a separate article as you suggest would be accepted as a notable subject for a stand alone article.--Charles (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this the liberal bias against Wikipedia I keep hearing of? NOW has existed for decades and is a national organization in the United States. They have their fair share of controversies. In fairness, more traditional organizations like Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage also have their controversies listed.Billturner1983 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This entry seems scrubbed by vested parties, as any of the words "critics, criticism, controversy, conflict, opposition, confrontation, militant and even scandal" are not to be found. This pristine summary seems very disingenuous at best. Sirald66 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It appears as a promotional piece for the organization. There are plenty of critical articles about them. Too many to cite. A simple google search using a combination of NOW, "criticizm" and/or "extremist" yield tons of results. It is hard to sift through irrelevant personal opinions from those who are somewhat known and/or respected in the political, academic or feminist community.Billturner1983 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Feminist Are A Majority
- What sentence in this article needs that source? --NeilN talk to me 04:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm sure you would, but WP:NOTAFORUM, y'know? - Alison ❤ 04:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then you need to read more. Seriously. Feminism is not about hating men - Alison ❤ 07:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I utterly disagree with that statement. You can totally address oppression of a group without 'hate' being involved - Alison ❤ 18:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I posted this on your talkpage, 220.127.116.11, but I'll repeat it here: Wikipedia talk pages are not forums, message boards, comments threads or chat rooms. Please do not post about anything except ways to improve articles. I'm serious, this is not what these pages are for, and repeated misuse can lead to complaints being filed with administrators. Euchrid (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's okay to post your personal opinion on something when it directly relates to article content. We all do that. Just keep it relevant to what's going on with the article page - Alison ❤ 18:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Less than 15 minutes after makign this claim, 18.104.22.168, you vandalised a reference to the NOW site, adding the phrase "Its members believe that feminism take up a majority of the female population in the world", which is not in any way reflected by the site the reference leads to. If you have nothing constructive or sourcable to add, please refrain from editing. Euchrid (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The Criticism section could use some information on Valerie Solonas, her S.C.U.M. Manifesto, and her advocation of genocide and enslavement, and the President of NOW's reaction to it. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)