Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

Clean up

I went through the article and did a bunch of clean up. Most notably, I created individual sections for the covered books, merged the reception for each book in the appropriate section, and removed the controversy section. The controversy section was basically a mess. The source was all very weak, and did not rely on any broader work to define how significant these events were in her career. The sources indicated that these were all short lived controversies which consumed some media attention, but were not defining aspects of her work. WP:BLP requires much better sourcing for content, and controversy sections are generally frowned upon. Adding some of the content back to the article in context should be fine. The challenge would be determining how prominent these events are in the scope of her career. For that we would need a good overview article of CHS to cite. aprock (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that you are going to find anything of that kind, frankly. I'm not sure how good the reasons were for removing that material, but if it takes "context" to restore it, then I predict that you won't find it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"NPOV"

My understanding of WP:NPOV is that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." Sommers' status as a "Feminist" is in dispute. According to the article, "Some of her critics refer to her as anti-feminist." Is it appropriate for the article to say that she is a Feminist, and these critics are wrong? Carte Rouge (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the article to side with the critics, implicitly, by denying that Sommers is a feminist? I'm afraid that doesn't seem in accord with WP:BLP. Since you invoke WP:NPOV, note that its first words are, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The article already does that, by noting that Sommers' critics have called her an anti-feminist. That is being fair and proportionate: it gives the views of the critics as much recognition as they deserve in the lead. Implicitly siding with with the critics and their point of view, as you are doing by trying to strip Sommers of her status as a feminist, is neither fair or proportionate. You seem to be trying to fight some ideological war here, promoting the view of Sommers' critics. Either find someone to agree with your changes and get consensus on the talk page, or else stop reverting the article back to your version. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Asking for a third opinion would not be a bad idea. See WP:THIRDOPINION. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Are there any sources which characterize her as a feminist? I've taken a look at some of the sources, and none of them describe her using that term without qualification. aprock (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sommers has repeatedly called herself a feminist. The obsession with disputing that self-characterization seems bizarre to me, and I'm definitely not seeing any legitimate reason for it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, do you have a specific source for that? aprock (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Read her. It's not my responsibility to do your homework for you. Forgive me, but it's tedious to get dragged into some Wiki-speak conversation. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you don't have to do my howework for me. I already did it, and could not find a single source which referred to her as a feminist without qualification. Now, if you want to add content to the article which describes her as such, it's up to you to find an appropriate source. aprock (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, reasonable sources which describe her brand of feminism include:

aprock (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Further, FAIR states "Sommers claims that she's a feminist, and journalists have largely taken her at her word. She has been identified as such on television, and many of the reviews of Who Stole Feminism? ran under headlines such as "Rebel in the Sisterhood" (Boston Globe, 6/16/94) or "A Feminist on the Outs" (Time, 8/1/94)." Their only criticism of this identification by both Sommers and others is a dubious quote already addressed in the Wikipedia article. See the end of the link. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Some (older?) review articles have called Sommers a self-proclaimed feminist, many others have described her as anti-feminist. The scholarly literature is even clearer in that Sommers is anti-feminist. You seem to be interested in GamerGate stuff and I hope that we can all agree that this article isn't the place for GamerGate activism just because Sommers commented on the controversy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's fair to say that there's a consensus in academic sources that Sommers is anti-feminist (or "pseudofeminist"). Examples include

I could go on. The point is that while we can and should state that Sommers considers herself a "freedom feminist" or "equity feminist" or whatever, we also need to make sure that the scholarly consensus is represented in the article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you say those sources are "scholarly"? Arkon (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Because all but one were written and edited by scholars (e.g., Martino, Johnson, Anderson, Pojansky, Kimmel, Kehler, Weaver-Hightower, Wainwright, Mendible, Cahill, Francis, Skelton) and/or because they were published in university presses (Oxford, Harvard, Rutgers, NYU) or by other academic publishers (Routledge, SCM Press). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Despite the link to a footnote of a 1994 FAIR article, I think the broader view of her is that she is by no means a traditional feminist. The sources above clearly illustrate this. aprock (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Then again there are other feminists that would get in a heated debate with each other like queer feminists and TERFs, but it's quite clear Sommers' faction is more marginal than that. Not a true Scotsman in any case, and that view should be noted in the article as well. --Pudeo' 10:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to discuss anything with editors who insist on using biased sources - in this case, articles or books by Sommers's ideological enemies - to dispute her self-characterization. Their behavior is bad manners and in bad taste, and it's a good example of the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a poor reputation. On reflection, however, I couldn't care less whether Sommers is described as a feminist or not. I have therefore reverted the lead back to the version that existed before the recent dispute. I hope that resolves matters. I have also boldly removed the "neutrality disputed" tag. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia

The article currently reads: "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes Sommers' "equity feminist" views as libertarian and socially conservative." While Sommers' works are cited in the encyclopedia, her views are not discussed. As her views are already well sourced and discussed in extensive detail in the following paragraph, this content is both redundant, and not properly sourced. I will remove it in due course. aprock (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the SEP, and you are obviously correct. I have removed some of that material myself; a case could be made for removing more. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
BS. Her works are her views. Her views are cited through her works. The citation style shows that. Did you note that the reference section was broken out by view? That is done only when the analysis is of the views of the authors. That's the "camps" method of attribution. It's splitting hairs otherwise and the Stanford piece does not do that. Do you go to the Einstein page and claim he disputed relativity because reviews of his work are only citations and not what he believed? We should start taking away Nobel prizes immediately if this this fallacy of attribution holds up. --DHeyward (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not "BS", it's the truth. Aprock is right. You obviously have no idea how to interpret sources or use them responsibly. You always need to be careful to avoid reading more into a source than is really there. The Stanford Encyclopedia does cite Sommers's books, but it does not discuss her views. It's absolutely crucial to make that distinction. It's just dumb to say that "the citation style shows" that it discusses her views. Everything in a BLP needs to be sourced as reliably and as cautiously as possible; by relying on arguments about the citation style of a source, you are showing that you are on weak ground. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please go down to the bibliography. You will see she is cited differently for works not putting the label "feminist". She is cited as "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist Works" for her works that are "feminist" and attributed as her work. She is cited as "Additional Sources" when it is of the type Aprock uses above. There is also a citation for "Liberal Feminism Works" where she is not cited. That is how "adherent" citation style works. There would be no reason to have four separate sections in the bibliography. Nor would they separate out her other works that were attributing a view to her. She coined the term "Equity feminist" and described herself with it in the book. Now, others describe themselves with it. A compromise is "feminist scholar" as she is undoubtedly one (google scholar lists her first book on feminism as being cited over 700 times). Wendy McElroy is also a feminist. If anything, surely you can that the Stanford piece citing her work where she says she is an equity feminist is at least reliable? --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you quoted the portion of the encyclopedia you think is relevant. As best I can tell, you're just performing editory WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not appropriate. aprock (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC) {Here:

Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist Works

Sommers, Christina Hoff (2007). “The Subjection of Islamic Women.” Weekly Standard Vol. 12, No. 34. [Available online] Sommers, Christina Hoff (2002). ‘The Case against Ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).’ Government Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, published by American Enterprise Institute. [Available online] ––– (2000). The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men. New York: Simon and Schuster. ––– (1994). Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Please note the attribution is to works by feminists, not works on feminism. There is a seperate section for works that are topical but not attributable to feminists. Stanford explicitly labels her a feminist. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You say that those are works by feminists, but the article does not make that claim. Please take care in being sure that you aren't reading more into the source than what is actually written. aprock (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
What is ambiguous to you about "Feminist Works?" It is English. It's in the article. If it listed "Renaissance Painter Works" and listed a bunch of paintings, would you argue the painters themselves weren't Renaissance Painters? It's an absurd reading to deny the Stanford posit that she is a "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist" as they list her as such. In addition, she self-identifies as an "equity feminist" and a "democrat." I don't see the reasoning behind denying her any of that. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Are those works by feminists, or works about feminists? The encyclopedia isn't clear about this. As you say, she identifies herself as an equity feminist, and that is what is in the lead. aprock (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously "by feminists" as they break up the camps of feminists and also cite works that are "about feminists" is in the "other" section. There are four sections of citations (liberal feminists, other works about liberal feminists, libertarian feminists, other works about libertarian feminists). Note that Sommers has works in both the sections attributed "to libertarian feminists" and the "other" section. The author was careful to cite what was "by feminists" and "other." The fact Sommers is in both showa that the source meticulously identified whether it was the author or the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, you obviously just don't get it. We need to use the highest-quality sources in BLPs, and we need to use them as cautiously and as responsibly as possible. You are plain wrong in thinking that it is acceptable for the article to say something like, "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes Sommers' "equity feminist" views as libertarian and socially conservative". The fact is that it doesn't, and going on about citation styles isn't a valid response. You are trying to read something into the source that is not really there, and that is unacceptable. I suggest taking the issue to the BLP noticeboard. There experienced editors will tell you that you are wrong. Listen to them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

IW, Are you even reading the edits? I just add "feminist scholar" in the first sentence. Surely you are not so obtuse that being references in a 750+ scholarly sources on feminism and being identified as a feminist in a analytical piece and self-identifying as a feminist isn't enough to say she is a "feminist scholar" in the opening sentence? really? Do you consider the label negative? Why are you denying the reality of all the references, self identification and scholarly analysis. The "anti-feminist" label is very negative and not nearly as supportable as "feminist scholar." If you knew anything about BLP policy, it would move you to strike anti-feminist long before striking feminist scholar. --DHeyward (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I'm the editor that struck Sommers out of the Stanford line so it now reads ""The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes "equity feminist" views as libertarian and socially conservative." --DHeyward (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, the source does not make the claim that she is a feminist scholar. That is your interpretation. aprock (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if the source had called equity feminism "conservative" the position of that sentence is highly suspect. As written, the article calls equity feminism convervative before it even explains the basic concept of equity feminism. I don't think that sentence is supported by the source at all; it seems like a fairly obvious attempt to discredit Sommers before the reader has a basic understand of what she is about. Even if it was sourced, it doesn't even make sense to use as the first sentence. We should state her views first, then talk about how others categorize them. 107.179.240.80 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommers does not 'make the case for moral conservation'

Regarding this sentence: "In an article for the textbook, Moral Soundings, Sommers makes the case for moral conservation and traditional values."

First, the sentence is repeated.

Second, it is not an accurate summary of what the source said. This sentence, is misrepresenting the source to make it seem like Sommers is some sort of pro-life bible thumper who promotes conservative political ideas (e.g. pro-life, anti-premarital-sex, pro-religion, etc).

The only relevant thing the source says is, "Christina Hoff Sommers, in chapter 17, seems to rely on such a view when she argues that contemporary students' lack of grounding our moral traditions inhibits their capacity for judgment."

This is not 'promoting traditional values'. It's just saying that knowing your history and the traditions of your people helps your judgment. It says nothing at all about traditional values and whether we should follow them - only that we should know them, so we know where we come from.

Sommers has a piece written earlier in the book, but if I'm not mistaken, we can't just summarize it because that would be original research? If that's what we're citing, we should link to it. And anyway, the same point would apply; she does not make a case for following traditional values - only for knowing them.

In conclusion, this sentence should be removed (both copies) as it does not reflect what the (extremely weak, one-sentence) source says.107.179.240.80 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this issue. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll remove this sentence. It does, indeed, seem to be a weak source for a view that she does not seem to have stated explicitly. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for removing it Metamagician3000; if you review the discussion above, you will see that there is more questionable material that may need removing. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo

Minor point, but: in the first section of the Ideas and Views section, there is an unclosed quotation mark around the phrase "equity feminist." Can someone who can edit the page fix this please? (Page is currently protected or I'd fix this myself) Fyddlestix (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"att== First sentence ==

We have "equity feminist"in the lede but not the first sentence where it belongs as that is what she is most known for. "equity feminist", "feminist" or "feminist scholar" are all reasonable descriptions of what she is known for. There are sources for all three. Pick one. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to call Sommers a feminist, and you know that. Why do you care so much about this? It's a total irrelevance to me whether Sommers is called a feminist or not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It's her most notable aspect and contribution that make her notable (750+ references in Google scholar to her first book, many secondary references to the term "equity femininst"). Why do people want to bury it? She is not known for anything but feminist works whether you agree or disagree with her style of feminism is beside the point. "feminist scholar" is adequate but her most notable accomplishment should be in the first sentence. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. Sommers is mainly notable because she wrote a book attacking one kind of feminism in the 1990s. The book and the attack are what make her notable, not her being a feminist, which is a debatable and rather uninteresting point. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Her book categorized types of feminists and she identified with a type. That type is notable today and referenced. Do you remove the "feminist" label from authors that attack "equity feminism" or do you only have a problem with equity feminists? --DHeyward (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Uh, no that's perfectly correct. She wrote a book attacking one kind of feminism, and that fact that it "categorized types of feminists" does not contradict that. You seem to have misunderstood my position; as I've said, I completely do not care whether Sommers is called a feminist or not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"Attacked?" Really? What weapons did she use? You are objecting pretty mightily for someone that doesn't care. She characterized different versions. That's it. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

CHSommers disputing content of article.

Ms Sommers today tweeted "My Wikipedia profile has been attacked. Now full of errors and mischaracterizations. Who did this? What can I do?." With respect to WP:BLP, what is the procedure when the subject disputes the content? She is clearly not WP savvy so she would not be able to initiate on-site dispute resolution process. Maybe the regular editors could follow this up in the interest of WP:BLP. Thanks Jgm74 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to that. Unfortunately, since Sommers does not explain what she considers the errors and mischaracterizations to be, her comments are not very helpful. I suppose that's partly a limitation of Twitter. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
More than partly a limitation of twitter. But what is the most appropriate way for her to express her concerns? By what means, in what forum? She raised a concern. It behoves WP to acknowledge her concerns even if they are found to be of no issue. Jgm74 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Sommers should say clearly what she thinks the problem is. If she doesn't, there is nothing Wikipedia can really do about it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Other than raising it here, she should be encouraged to contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org. There are also some suggestions on how to proceed at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. We should always take the concerns raised by the subjects of articles seriously. Unfortunately, it is difficult in this case to know what the problems are - I'd like to help fix them, but other than the minor issues listed so far, I haven't seen anything in particular that we can act on. As you say, this is probably due to the limitations of Twitter, but maybe the email address will help. - Bilby (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bilby. That's all I was after. I forwarded the Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects to her so she has the option to raise specific issues if she so desires. Jgm74 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully she'll do that - Wikipedia is hard to navigate if you don't know the processes, but problems with biographies of living people are should always be looked into, as there is potential for real harm. I don't know if this will be something we can act on - at the moment I'm not sure of what the concern is, but I just may not be seeing the right things - but her concerns should be taken very seriously. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Her comments are VERY helpful. They have alerted you to a problem. Your comments insulting her contribution and dismissing them without spending any time analyzing using the DIFFERENCE tool is not very helpful. I suppose that's partly a limitation of how wiki amplifies a person's negative traits.208.53.122.13 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Her comments are vague and of very limited use. I have not insulted Sommers or anyone else, as you wrongly suggest, but you are insulting me. See WP:CIVIL. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Guys, I'm genuinely not trying to start drama. Bilby answered the questions. Thanks, I'm done. Jgm74 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It's easy. Go to a version way before GG and watch it go negative. Watch how editors came here to tear it down. --DHeyward (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2014 a

Per the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits, the caption in the info box should be "Hoff Sommers, circa 2009" or something similar, not a photo credit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, that looks weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
And the image is suggested for deletion: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Identification, scare quotes, weasel words

She identifies as a feminist and there is "No true Scotsman" test for that. Her views on feminism are sought after almost exclusively so the argument she is not a feminist is extremely dubious. There is no one "feminist" test. She self-identifies as a feminist. No other feminists are bracketed into a sub-feminist genre so her identification is enough. Period. End of discussion (it's the same with "TERF" - we don't decide "TERF" vs. "Feminist"). The lede focuses too much on what others think she is against rather than what she has stated she is for. In the body, it says "she claims to her students" while the more neutral source for that uses the term "explains to her students." Rather than state an ideology of a reviewer that is made without any sourcing, it is preferred to just identify the reviewer. All of this is correcting a negative false light narrative which is against BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @ImprovingWiki: as I am not sure the edit shows as a revert. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the discussion above? There is no consensus to call Sommers a feminist in the article. Personally, I simply don't care about that issue, but you certainly have no right to call Sommers a feminist in the article when there is no agreement for that. It's dumb and childish to say things like "End of discussion" on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project, where no one person is in command, and it matters what your fellow editors think. Even if there were a good case for calling Sommers a feminist, it's simply silly to suggest that it's a BLP violation not to do so; whether to identify her as a feminist or not is partly a matter of editorial judgment. Incidentally, BLP does not mean, despite what you seem to think given your edit summary here, that "negative information is to be removed." WP:BLP does not say anything like that, and a moment's thought would show that such an approach could never be followed (otherwise, it would be impossible to write articles about criminals, for example). Rather, it means that any "negative" material in the article must be carefully cited, proportionate, and of encyclopedic relevance. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I see you don't even try to justify most of your changes. What was the BLP reason for adding the words " which she calls 'victim feminization' " to the lead supposed to be? As far as I can see, that's simply unnecessary verbiage and does not improve the article at all. Please stop adding it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Considering that a brand new editor has just showed up and made an edit similar to yours here, you might want to see WP:MEAT, among other policies. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read the discussion above. They mistakenly believe feminism is a judgement call by the editor. Like other groups that don't have an inclusion criteria, we defer to the person making the claim - we don't exclude them. There are many examples - we don't even question self-identified women, let alone a feminist that makes living as a feminist author, speaker and professor. We don't distinguish TERFs from feminists either. Or even just radical feminists. Leave off the conditional aspect as if she is not a "true" feminist. We then can use other sources to explain her feminist positions and also critics. I added "what she calls 'victim feminization'" because it's taken directly from the source [2] used for the lead and "equity feminist" is not. Also, it is about an idea, not a person. It doesn't make any claims or qualifiers about another feminist. Before my edit, it was negative in tone and balance. Instead of explaining her views, it was nearly all about her critics' views of her. You can get stuffed on your meat puppet claims. --DHeyward (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The label needs to be a reliably sourced one. Her calling herself a feminist is not enough to make her a feminist, especially when the weight of reliable sources describes her as an anti-feminist. aprock (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd think that WP:BLPPRIMARY certainly applies in this instance, especially because they run a Youtube webshow with the username 'The Factual Feminist' and ascribes to what she calls 'Equity feminism.' Just because some sources have disputed that doesn't mean she's all of a sudden not a feminist. This discussion also reeks of what I think of as a misuse of sources. I'm sure we can find a ton of sources that dispute Barrack Obama's status as non-American, but that's not present in the article. Ultimately, I believe that her word should be the final say in terms of identification. She identifies as a feminist, and therefore is. Now, there is an argument to be made that for certain things, she ascribes to the label but uses it as sort of an identity politics sort of thing. Like, claiming to be a Staunch conservative and proposing things like universal healthcare, total reforms of everything, da da da. That can be important to note, but the ultimate identity methinks should be feminist. Maybe those sources can elaborate on her overall views, but I don't think we can deny her the label. Tutelary (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. You are going to need to come up with sources more robust than "youtube username". aprock (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I sourced it to the Stanford article that cites her work numerous times as a classical liberal feminist. There are many varieties of feminists in the literature. Even our handy feminism template lists all sorts of feminist positions and theories. Feminists critical of other feminists doesn't make one or the other less so. There is no standard bearer or mantle from which the label is drawn. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That source does not describe Sommers as a feminist. aprock (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, as per above [3], there is a significant body of sources which describe her as anti-feminist. If you want to apply some sort of label to her, it's up to you to find high quality mainstream sources which establish that label. As it stands, the article is better served by not trying to label her. aprock (talk)
It absolutely does both explicitly and as scholarly reference. See section entitled "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian Feminist Works", and see "Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000)." "Some equity feminists argue ...(Sommers 2007)" and there are more. Sommers argues the equity feminist points in her works whence the references aren't that Sommers observed equity feminists, rather the Stanford piece uses her work as an example of equity feminist views. She is also not the only one they use. Other sources are free to characterize her views any way they want as she can also criticize theirs. We are certainly not going to put Sommers "victimization" views in other feminist BLPs though so we should not be so quick to put her critics views here as if they were stone tablets. --DHeyward (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You're confusing citing someone with describing someone. aprock (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That's why I explained they were citing them as holding the position, not as observers. It's why the citations are broken out as "Liberal Feminism" and "Classical-Liberal or Libertarian". That occurs when they are attributing ideology, not just citation. Read Wendy McElroy as she is cited exactly the same way and it is the coverage of her views. It's nearly comical to claim that the phrase she coined to describe her views doesn't apply to her. "Equity feminists" exist and she is why they are called that. --DHeyward (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Your explanation amounts to editor synthesis. Not a proper use of sources. aprock (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A quick search reveals an IAmA (sort of like an interview) on Reddit where you considers herself an equity feminist; http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nqdqp/i_am_christina_hoff_sommers_author_of_who_stole/ The IAmA was confirmed by her and as a result, it can be stated that yes, she self identifies as an equity feminist. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, it's suitable to use this source since all of the criteria is met. Sure it's not third party or secondary, it's primary. But it's unambiguous of her nature. Tutelary (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That she is an equity feminist is not at all in dispute, and is already mentioned in the lead. I'm not entirely sure that reddit AMAs are a reasonable source for any article, let alone a WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. It's suitable for claims about their person, as long as those criteria are met. So what is in dispute then? I just saw you remove any mention of it. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
From the AMA: "I walked onto that ship a liberal feminist and came off- let me just say- confused". It's not clear how you are going to use that to support her being a feminist. As noted just above, her support of equity feminism is already in the lead. aprock (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Moving further from the first question, the first answer is I consider myself an equity feminist. An equity feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fairness, dignity, liberty, opportunity. Her 'support' of it =/= her actually being one imho. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
As noted twice above, there is already a discussion of equity feminism in the lead. aprock (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so there is no confusion, "equity feminists" are "feminists" just as "TERFs" are "feminists". I am open to "feminist scholar" as her writings are widely cited in nearly all circles of feminism. The fact she criticizes U.S. feminists while such things as female circumcision is protected by law in other countries doesn't make her less of a feminist. In fact, many believe eradicating government backed sexism (i.e. slavery, prostitution, female circumcision and laws forbidding education) in third-world countries is more pressing than issues facing women in the U.S. Feminist ideology is diverse. --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have your own personal opinions on the matter. You're going to have to come up with an actual source if you want to support content for this article. aprock (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is the other way around, that you need to demonstrate that Sommers' feminism is not a form of feminism. You fully agree that she qualifies as an "equity feminist". It contains the word "feminist", the definition of equity feminism from it's origin in her book Whole Stole Feminism defines it as a form of feminism. Steven Pinker's, "The Blank Slate" defines it that way. Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it as feminism. The Natioal Women's Political Caucus -- a feminist organization co-founded by "Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Height, Myrlie Evers, several congresswomen, heads of national organizations, and others who shared the vision of gender equality including Dolores Delahanty of Kentucky and writer and journalist Letty Cottin Pogrebin" and who believe that "legal, economic and social equity would come about only when women were equally represented among the nation's political decision-makers." -- awarded her [1] with a feminist writing award, and for asking "should we acknowledge the roots of feminism and strive for equal education for all". Even multiple Wikipedia articles list her as being a feminist and equity feminism as part of feminism. The evidence and sources are overwhelmingly strong, and far stronger than is typically required in a BLP, that she is a feminist and in support of feminism, but is critical of one form of feminism. Further, the rules for BLP are clearly aimed at neutrality where the current intro only identifies her as being in opposition to feminism. There is no balance with her being in support of feminism or being a feminist. At this point I think you need to provide sources to demonstrate why these are insufficient; otherwise it appears that you are simply using your own personal opinion. All of the criteria you have set have been met.

I have looked at recent changes to the article. I find many of them to be unhelpful and quite destructive, and I regret that there has been no discussion of most of them. It does not improve the article in any way to add the words "which she calls "victim feminization" " to the lead. That is simply bad writing, and I am going to remove it in the absence of any convincing argument for inclusion. Part of the lead has been altered, so that the words "Sommers labels herself an "equity feminist" who faults contemporary feminism for "its irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and statistics and its inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different"" have been replaced by, " Sommers supports "equity feminism", which "promotes fair treatment, respect and dignity for all woman."" That, too, is a clearly unhelpful change, and again I am going to remove it if no one can justify or defend it. Obviously, all feminists would say that they are in favor of those things, so that doesn't help the reader in any way or explain why Sommers's views are controversial. If anything, it amounts to trying to hide the controversy, which does a serious disservice to readers. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just come across these changes since last week and it looks like in the discussion there is a need for additional sources on Sommers as a feminist. In Steven Pinker's 2002 book, The Blank Slate, p.342 he includes her in a list of feminists. Specifically, the quote is, "Gender feminism's disdain for analytical rigor and classical liberal principles has recently been excoriated by equity feminists, among them ..., Christina Hoff Sommers, ...". Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University and he has been named Humanist of the Year, Prospect magazine’s “The World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals,” Foreign Policy’s “100 Global Thinkers,” and Time magazine’s “The 100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” I hope that is of sufficient quality. I looked to make the edit but it seems to be in lockdown. Dashing Leech (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Found this today http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript132.html : "But for the next half-hour we will hear a different idea from two prominent and controversial feminists: Camille Paglia and Christina Sommers." PBS strikes me as a trustworthy source, and the quote is from a transcript, that portion is voiced by Ben J. Wattenberg. Isofarro (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Please remove the image File:Christina Hoff Sommers.jpg from the infobox in enforcement of WP:NFCC. There is no evidence it is free, despite the claims of the uploader. Up for deletion at commons. CIreland (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Image is up for deletion on Wikimedia. I'd say wait for it to be deleted there before removing it here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you happy with that CIreland? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not put criticisms as fact +leave them without a response

Some criticisms by FAIR for instance the subject says are inaccurate, they should not be portrayed in the article as facts without clarification and her responses to the criticisms. http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/letters-to-the-editor-mayjune-1995/ SatansFeminist (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is already in the article. I think you're suggesting it be changed. While the article is under protection, you have to make concrete suggestions otherwise nothing will happen. aprock (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
How about adding a link to the response instead of just a link to a page that contains the link to her reply to what FAIR said? 87.162.222.186 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


Protected edit request on 26/11/14

In the lead, in the first sentence of the article, take out the phrase 'known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture.' then it will be a reasonable lead. The sentiment is duplicated in a more neutral way later in the lead so it's redundant and misleading overemphasis to put in the first sentence. Seriously we should be respectful of a living person's wishes and not smear them.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Living people often wish to have the Wikipedia article about them serve as an advertisement and hagiography. We are not here to grant wishes. Is there any evidence that the lead is not accurately portraying how the subject is viewed and covered by the reliably published sources? WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and you are further besmirching a professional person by implying she would want an advert or hagiography, she just wants the article to not be painting her as something she isn't. She's said herself many times she's not anti-feminist. Further down in the lead it repeats this claim of critics and gives her response. A few critic's assessment of her shouldn't be the very first sentence of her article and imply that's all she's known for. When I was editing wikipedia several years ago we'd begun to be far more sensitive to how we depict BLP subjects.SatansFeminist (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@SatansFeminist: reliable sources call her anti-feminist, so it's mentioned in the article. It's also mentioned that she considers her self a feminist. There are no BLP issues here. Everything is properly sourced and due weight is given to both the article's subject and reliable sources. And she is indeed known for being anti-feminist in many circles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
reliable sources also refute that she is anti-feminist. Her critics call her anti-feminist while others say she is critical of certain feminist ideas that grew in academia since the late 1980's. Her quote from 1994 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.” Her article here describes her feminist principles. I can see how some feminists may want to go further, but few would argue that what she has outlined is "anti-feminist." Reliable sources will have examples of views that they consider anti-feminist and not just a label. And if they have views, we can simply cite the views. Otherwise, the label needs to go.--DHeyward (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you please show reliable sources that are not written by Sommers herself that refer to her as feminist? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In reliably published books I have found "post-feminist" and "anti-feminist" used to describe her. "post-feminist" seems to be more charitable, and kind of place here within a wider feminist camp. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't think post feminist can be called "feminist". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

She largely describes her self as a qualified feminist, most notably as an "equity feminist", a term she developed to distinguish her views on gender, sex, and society from that of more mainstream feminism. To call her a feminist in large part negates much of the effort she has put into promoting the distinctions that she's built her career upon. aprock (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And much more important, calling her a feminist negates the available reliable sources on the subject. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014

@Bbb23: or other admin, can you please add the page protection template to the article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added pp-dispute. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Article concerns

Hi. My understanding is the Dr Sommers has expressed some concerns about this article (per the above), but hasn't yet been able to elaborate on what they are. I'm always concerned that Wikipedia makes it difficult for people who don't know the system to engage with editors, and that seems to be what has happened. However, I noticed that comparisons have been drawn between the current version of the article [4] and the version from July (pre GamerGate) [5]. In looking at the two, the content is quite similar - there has been a major reorganisation, but the leads of the two are mostly the same, and much of the content is still there. That said, in the July version there was a "Criticisms and controversy" section, almost all of which has been removed, but my feeling is that the old section suffered from being undue. Other than that, the main differences I can find are two lines which have since been removed:

  • Author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a "libertarian." Sommers is also a registered Democrat.
  • The War Against Boys was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year for 2000.

And from the lead, there has been a change from "... known for her critique of late 20th century feminism, and her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture" to "...known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture" which moves the focus from criticism and writing to just opposition.

Presuming that these are a concern, I don't see a problem with returning the statement that she is a registered Democrat. I've never understood US politics, but I'm assuming that it matters more than I would have expected from an Australian perspective. I also see no problems with the "notable book of the year" being raised, as it seems significant given the source. The sentence in the lead is a bit trickier, but I greatly prefer the "critique" wording over "opposition", (you can critique something without being in full opposition, so it would fit better with the equity feminist description), and it might be worth adding back a reference to her writings. In regard as to whether or not to describe her as a feminist in the lead I'm a bit indifferent - her official biography at AEI doesn't describe her as a feminist, (just as a former philosophy professor), but there are a lot of reasons why that might be the case. Perhaps describing her as an equity feminist in the first line would be a decent way forward, but that's a different issue.

My other main concern is with the description of "Who Stole Feminism" which starts with a criticism before explaining what the book is about. It should start with a summary, even if only a sentence or two, as per "The War Against Boys" section, and be more balanced in the discussion.

Any thoughts? I might be right off base with this, but given the concerns it seemed worth trying to look at what changes might help, even though we still probably need better context on the issues. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree with this. I think critique should be preferred to opposition in the lead. As the editor who removed much of incidental criticism, I agree with it being undue weight. My edit summary from the time: removing the rest of the controversy section per guidelines, these are isolated incident and appear to be cherry picked, much better source required by WP:BLP). You are also correct about needing a book summary at the head of the section. Describing her as an equity feminist seems quite appropriate, since she invented that term to differentiate herself from traditional feminism. aprock (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
While we defer to self identification for religion and sexual orientation, we do not defer to self identification via made up words for what a person is known for/their work classified as. We place her work and works as others have classified them, and if appropriate, state how the person positions themself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Her "made up word" is mainstream, survived over 20 years and her work that coined it is cited over 700 times in scholarly works. There are other libertarian feminists that also ascribe to equity feminist ideals. You need to get over the idea that it's made up or that it's anti-feminist. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The part about one author claiming that Sommers explicitly self-identifies as a libertarian was removed by me, per WP:UNDUE. It seems suspect, and I don't see a good reason to include that material in this article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It could be considered a BLP violation to insert a label of what somebody is, even if reliably sourced if they actively deny such a label. We shouldn't be labeling people anyways. She identifies as a feminist, and with BLP policy, we should defer to that label out of respect and dignity. For a source for her unambiguous self identification, check out the reddit link I posted earlier. (Confirmed on her Twitter feed to be her account.) WP:BLPSELFPUB should be appropriate. Tutelary (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "could" - if for example we blasted some random Joe Blow calling her a c-word. However, reflecting what the reliable sources say is NOT a BLP concern. BLP is not a whitewash.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
So you're telling me that if someone disputes their label then that's not a BLP violation to consistently label them that? Got any precedent here? Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects ... Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, " ... Have you read BLP? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean where another article where a BLP has rejected a label but it was applied anyways. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If what we're talking about is people calling Sommers anti-feminist, then it is not a BLP violation for the article to say that people have called her that. It definitely is a violation for the article to present the "anti-feminist" claim in Wikipedia's voice, as though it were objective fact. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This is WP:BLP. The subject should be labelled how they identify. If that is disputed in source material then that should be included as criticism of the subjects identity. As a irregular editor I believe I can give an outsiders opinion here. It is unreasonable to label a subject as anything other than the label by which they self-identify. If after reading the sources you feel that the label is inappropriate, the you can criticise the application of the label. Ie. A feminist is a person who identifies as a feminist. Other feminists can disagree. The role of the source material is to report how someone self-identifies, and to support or criticise such label. But a source cannot determine a living subjects identity (political, philosophical, etc). On a contentious point of political identity one would want to attribute critical views in text. This is a big deal - certainly it'd be a big deal outside of WP. I apologise if I seem to be lecturing you. Jgm74 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually this is a Wikipedia encyclopedia article and NOT someone's homepage/free webhost. They can present themselves how they want on their own time and space, but here we present them as the sources present them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this is not a homepage or an autobiography. However it is longstanding convention that people get to choose their political views. Others may criticise. So I see a problem with the third sentence. If CHS identiffies as an "Equity feminist" then this should be stated and sourced. If this identity is criticised (and I agree that it is) then that criticism should follow, the criticism outlined, and attributed. Eg. CHS identifies herself as a Democrat and an Equity Feminist. Various others (ABC) criticise her use of the feminist label because (DEF). We have differing opinions, and it is unlikely that we will find middle ground which is unfortunate. I'll flag this for an external opinion once I can make sense of the WP procedure for such. One last thing, I do take this seriously, and I am writing in good faith (a shame that that is necessary). Jgm74 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If Sommers identifies as an "equity feminist" and it is sourced, then yes, her self identification can (and should) be included, BUT her self identification should not be presented as THE SOLE identification if/when there are third party sources that ascribe different characteristics. And if the sources are solid and meaningful and consistently aligned in their interpretation, we place the value on the third party's interpretations rather than any self-promoting/ self-serving self-identification. WP:UNDUE AND WP:BLP which also specifically cautions against promotionalization of living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Red pen, are you seriously trying to claim that the BLP subject's own identification is [[[WP:UNDUE]] here? Or that it should be given last if at all? Tutelary (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont have access to enough academic files about Sommers to make such a conclusion about where she is placed and viewed, but the principle that "the subject gets to claim their identification" is a completely false premise on which to be proceeding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
She's provided such proof on an IAmA on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nqdqp/i_am_christina_hoff_sommers_author_of_who_stole/ (Verified through her Twitter) She identifies as an equity feminist unambiguously. And I dissent with you because ultimately, who are you to say they aren't a 'real' X or Y? Who defines a 'real' something? Sounds like No True Scotsman to me. Other sources can disagree, but what she identifies should absolutely be in the article. Tutelary (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont believe I ever said she has or has not identified as anything, I am saying that we privilege what third party reliable sources say over self promotional self identities. (but your source is Reddit????) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Are people really trying to make the case that Sommers' main philosophy is equity feminism, while she herself is not a feminist? You must see the contradiction here. The article on equity feminism correctly states that it is a kind of feminism. Given that, someone who believe is in equity feminism is a feminist by definition, the same way someone who believes in Orthodox Christianity is a Christian by definition. We should identify Sommers as feminist; it would be logically contradictory to do otherwise. (Sadly, at this point I'm pretty much expecting people to start attacking the equity feminism article on the grounds that it's not 'real' feminism because it only believes in straightforward equality of rights. Such is how ridiculous this has gotten after GG.) Casimirin (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, when did it become standard for Wikipedia editors to be the ones who decide whether or not someone is a feminist? Weedwacker (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We go by the third party sources, not self proclamations. If the third party sources regularly disagree with self proclamations, we go by the third parties and provide a "subject says they are X". That's policy. WP:UNDUE. Without specifically discussing sources, continuing this discussion is just a waste of pixels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We also have third party sources identifying her philosophy as equity feminism, which according to Wikipedia and its sources is a form of feminism. Are you going to go and try to get that changed as well? She is a feminist. --Eldritcher (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you specify which sources are you talking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition[2] good enough? --Eldritcher (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
When it became inconvenient for their biased POV pushing. Q T C 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The bigger problem with the section about "Who Stole Feminism" is that it focuses on single statements and their criticism and rebuttals. The section should describe what the book is about. If the statements and theories are to be included, they should come after the description. The book has its own article so only the most important details should be included here. This was addressed. --Eldritcher (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2014 b

'Sommers coined the terms "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" to differentiate what she sees as acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism.' change to 'what she sees as constructive and unconstructive'-her sentiments are libertarian,it's not a value judgement or authoritarian pronouncement, it's an opinion, based on argument. Also in the lead- the critics' description of her as 'anti-feminist' should not come before a more neutral way of stating that. It could say for instance 'is a writer and speaker on the topic of feminism. Her critique of modern feminism has led some to call her an anti-feminist, but she describes herself as a 'Freedom Feminist.' ref= http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/18/saving-feminism -- SatansFeminist (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that wording could be improved on. It doesn't really meet the standards of an encyclopedia. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Lol, what mine or the current one? It was just a suggestion for people to put something of that nature. Implying a BLP subject considers some forms of an ideology acceptable vs unacceptable, is implying something about a BLP subject's character, for instance censoriousness, in a way 'constructive and unconstructive' does not. SatansFeminist (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear about it, I think that your wording could be improved. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest changing the line "Sommers labels herself an "equity feminist" who faults contemporary (third-wave) feminism for[...] " Additions in bold. If you read the cited article, that's what she's referring to (citing the 90s as the point of contention for her), and it'd be clearer/focused for those reading this page. This would also stop the is she/isn't she a feminist arguing, because she clearly is - she's just firm second wave. Even the title of her book 'who stole feminism?' is implicit evidence of that Metalmunki81 (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"Sommers is a feminist who is critical of certain feminist views that first became prominent in academia in the late 1980's" (cite: Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.”) --DHeyward (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that's appalling. I'm strongly opposed to adding that. What is "certain feminist views" supposed to mean? It's vague, it's pointless, and it's unhelpful. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"Sommers is a feminist who is critical of views on feminism that arose in academia in the late 1980's" (cite: Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.”) --DHeyward (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't respond to my point. Maybe you weren't trying to respond. Do you perhaps not even care whether the lead is useful or informative to readers? ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to mean second-wave feminism and/or radical feminism. But those really arose earlier. There are many branches that arose in the 1980s. If we're referring to a particular one, it needs to be specified. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

we are back to "what do the sources say?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's informative if we use the equity and gender feminist language. The whole point of the lead should be to introduce what she is mainly known for ("being an equity feminist") and what she critiques ("a form of feminism she identifies as gender feminism that arose in academia in the 1980's"). You don't have to agree with her point of view to describe it in the opening sentence. --DHeyward (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Article subjects typically don't get to self-define in the lead sentence. RS define them. WP:SPSSELF applies here. She can call herself a unicorn, but we ain't gonna put that in the lead description. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparing her views to a fictitious animal is not helpful. It's not as if the term is fictitious, unused by others or not in reliable sources. It is not a neologism. In fact, her work is cited over 700 times in scholarly journals. There are a number of feminists that are characterized as "equity feminists." It was coined 20 years ago and is notable today. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid counter-argument to overwhelming number of scholarly papers that cite the work that defines the term she is identified with and that she identifies with. Your position is akin to saying Albert Einstein shouldn't be identified as believing in general relativity even though he established it and a large number of papers cite his work. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Find the RS that call her a feminist. Again, we typically don't let people self-define. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are a couple just based on a quick Google search:
In her book Sexual Correctness, Wendy McElroy refers to Sommers as "the liberal feminist Christina Hoff Sommers." (p. 10) A Vanity Fair article refers to Sommers as "feminist Christina Hoff Sommers."
No doubt more Google, or Google Scholar, searching could turn up more RSs. Memills (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Memills: Your edit here is most likely a violation of your MRM topic ban. Please do not edit here again if you wish to remain unblocked. Also, if you just google the phrase "feminist Christina Hoff Sommers" as you did, please don't leave out the fact that the majority of the search results use qualifiers such as "faux-feminist", "self-described feminist" or just quotation marks. You just proved my and other editors' point. I can also find ten to twenty RS stating that she is an anti-feminist for every source calling her a feminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
So the solution is to simply state that Sommers has been variously described as a feminist, an equity feminist, an anti-feminist, etc., and, that she refers to herself as an equity feminist. That would be the most accurate presentation. (And, by the way, please stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. That has been going on for far too long.) Memills (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The people who call her "faux-feminist" and "self-described equity feminist" or use quotation marks for her self-description "equity feminist" aren't actually calling her feminist. The obvious solution is to state Sommers' self-definition along with what the vast majority of reliable sources say about her. By the way, I notified an admin of your possible topic ban violation. I also suggest that you retract your false accusation that I am wikihounding you because it's patently obvious that I joined the discussion on this talk page long before you did. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Even critical pieces like the Washington Post review calls her an "equity feminist"[6]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Please notice the quotation marks around "equity feminist". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was the seminal review of the book and the first time the term was used. It has lasted 20 years and scare quotes are no lonmger required and the seminal review would quote the inventing author. It's now mainstream. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Her book that coined the term is a reliable source and has been cited over 700 times. It's not self-published, it's published by Simon & Schuster which is a division of CBS. But even WP:SPSSELF in addition to WP:RS and there is nothing in WP:SPSSELF that restricts it either so it's valid under both. Name the violation you think is occuring. Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.” That's a reliable, published, and sourced describing the author (the source has been cited over 700 times according to google scholar) statement that also satisfies every requirement as WP:SPSSELF. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to underline DHeyward's point, if Sommers can't be considered a feminist on the above criteria, neither could Erin Pizzey who's been pretty vocal about what she saw as a hostile takeover of feminism in the late 70s. Not sure I'd like to know the person who thinks Erin Pizzey isn't a feminist! Metalmunki81 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there a large body of literature describing how Pizzey is not a feminist but an anti-feminist? Otherwise it is not really comparable. One thing is claiming to be something, but when other members of the same group disputes the identification that is relevant, especially when they do it in a dozen reliably published books. The solution is to describe that she considers herself to be a feminist and that others consider her to be an anti-feminist. Both are clearly significant and notable views in the literature about her. But none of them should appear in wikipedia's voice. By the way the article on Pizzey no where describes her as a feminist, and it quotes her own statement that she has never been one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014c

The War Against Boys was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year for 2000.[3]

This sentence was already included, and was removed by this HEAVILY biased edit [7] without any sort of consensus and frankly unexplainable. This has even been noted by Sommers herself Loganmac (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nwpc.org/2013emmawinners
  2. ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/#EquFem
  3. ^ For this review and others see Amazon.com Editorial Reviews (http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849569)
I think you'll need to find a reliable source for this. I don't think an online retailer qualifies. aprock (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I've found The New York Times itself as a source [8] Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
At this stage I'm inclined to wait until the page is unprotected to make these sorts of content edits, unless there's a strong consensus to add them now. - Bilby (talk)
My point was that there was no consensus to take it back neither, I checked on this article like a month ago and it was fine now I see it got striped of alot of stuff, and it's protected Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Me too Loganmac, a month ago the page was ok, now all this snipey POV got put in etc. Funny how people think content which isn't slating her work shouldn't be added, but slating her is fine.SatansFeminist (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm generally inclined to make some mention of this, at least when the protection expries, but I was looking at the NYT source and it doesn't seem overly significant, in that there are over 150 books in the list, and the review it links to wasn't particularly positive. Do we know how important being on that list was? I have no hassles with mentioning it, but I'm not sure how much weight to give it when we do. - Bilby (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
i think the context would be important : "it was named as one of the150 notable works of the year"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a nice tendetious proposal RedPen, it should be just like it was written before, if people want to follow the link and find that 150 books is too much (do we have any idea how much books get released in a year?) let them Loganmac (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
so context is tendetious . interesting perspective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014d

Remove line "Scholar Nancy K.D. Lemon, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, rebutted this claim, noting that the study "Battering During Pregnancy: Intervention Strategies," by Anne Stewart Helton and Frances Gobble Snodgrass, funded by a grant by March of Dimes, appears in the September 1987 issue of the journal Birth.[20]"

Per discussion above, Sommers rebutted Lemon's criticism but it's argued the rebuttal would be UNDUE. Lemon's criticim is quite flimsy and doesn't stand scrutiny against our other articles, let alone a BLP. Without the rebuttal, it's a BLP issue per Jimbo. With the rebuttal it's UNDUE per Aprock. Therefore it's best to remove it completely since it's a BLP violation right now. --DHeyward (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll just note that I was suggesting removing the entire topic, not just the rebuttals. That is, removing

Sommers writes in Who Stole Feminism that an often-mentioned March of Dimes study which says that "domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects," does not exist.

as well. aprock (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, re-reading that section, it is an utter mess. Once the article is unprotected a proper summary of the book should be added, along with reviews nad reception. aprock (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Who Stole Feminism? has its own article. Some content that might not be suitable for this article could be moved there. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Line 22

Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture.

should be reverted to

Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author, feminist, and former philosophy professor known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism, which she calls "victim feminization," in contemporary American culture.

The former casts her as an opponent of feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.148.111 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the article should not be reverted from one version to the other. Either version could be questioned. Discussion needs to take place first. In my opinion, the version the IP editor thinks the article should be reverted to is the result of rather inept and destructive editing. There is certainly no advantage to adding mumbo-jumbo like "victim feminization" to the lead; who knows what it's even supposed to mean? ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think everything in that sentence after 'professor' can go. The next sentences introduce her books and ideas sufficiently; we don't need to pack the same information in distorted form into the first sentence. Good writing is generally one idea per sentence. Casimirin (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I concur if "feminist", "equity feminist" or "feminist scholar" are in the first sentence. He main contribution is creating and identifying as an equity feminist. --DHeyward (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
No, her main contribution was writing a book attacking one strain of feminism - the dominant strain at the time, and still possibly now. Most people probably have no idea what "equity feminist" is supposed to mean, so characterizing her as one without further qualification is not helpful. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally agree, though characterizing her writing as an attack is probably a bit heavy for the lead. But she is best known for her ideas about factionalizing feminism, and her support of the faction that is not traditional feminism. aprock (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be a bit presumptuous for us to decide what is 'traditional' feminism. By the way Sommers and many others write, equity feminism is the traditional feminism of the 20th century, and the modern academic version is a sort of offshoot neo-feminism. I don't think we need to say that any form of feminism is more traditional or mainstream. Or at least, we can't without good sourcing, because going either way would be contentious. IMo the best approach here is to just say she's explicitly equity feminist, discuss what that means, and then perhaps talk about how others view equity feminism. Casimirin (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, when discussing content for the article, we cite reliable sources. aprock (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I see significant problems in the use of "opposition" to feminism, and the reference to traditional feminism in the talk here. To cite a reliable source, Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", p. 342 lists Sommers as an equity feminist and p. 341 states "Equity feminism opposes sex discrimination and other forms of unfairness to women. It is part of the classical liberal and humanistic tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment, and it guided the first wave of feminism and launched the second wave." Pinker refers here to equity feminism as the traditional feminism, and (in the rest of the pages 341-342) gender feminism as the break from this tradition. At the same time he is pointing out Sommers' (and other equity feminists) support of, not opposition to, the goals of feminism in equality, fairness, and removal of discrimination. It seems to me incorrect to refer to her either opposing or critiquing modern feminism, but rather supporting the type of feminism that most people support (ref in a sec) and opposing a loud, but fringe movement of gender feminism. For ref, again from Pinker, p. 342, "It is not just gender feminism's collision with science that repels many feminists." and p. 341, "Feminists reply that proponents of women's rights do not speak with one voice, and that feminist thought comprises many positions, which have to be evaluated independently. That is completely legitimate, but it cuts both ways. To criticize a particular feminist proposal is not to attack feminism in general." Further, p. 343, "The difference between gender feminism and equity feminism accounts for the oft-reported paradox that most women do not consider themselves feminists (about 70 percent in 1997, up from about 60 percent a decade before), yet they agree with every major feminist position. The explanation is simple: the word “feminist” is often associated with gender feminism, but the positions in the polls are those of equity feminists." The poll he is citing is S. Boxer, "One casualty of the women's movement: Feminism," New York Times, 1997. And as above, Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University and he has been named Humanist of the Year, Prospect magazine’s “The World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals,” Foreign Policy’s “100 Global Thinkers,” and Time magazine’s “The 100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” I'm pretty sure this qualifies as sufficient quality reference. I suggest changing the reference from her opposition of modern feminism to being supportive of mainstream, traditional, classical, and liberal feminism (all supported by the reference here) while criticizing some modern forms of radical feminism. I looked to make the edit but it seems to be in lockdown. Dashing Leech (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, no a single voice proclaiming "All of you feminists and everything that has been called feminism re not actually feminists because of a poll where women dont identify as feminists" is a little out there. and while in his fields he is respected, his fields of expertise are are visual cognition and psycholinguistics, not feminism.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You have made a lot of backward and strawman arguments here. First, nowhere has Sommers, or I in the above comment, said "All of you feminists and everything that has been called feminism re not actually feminists because of a poll where women don't identify as feminists". In fact, that is what the edits here seem to be doing to Sommers, saying she, and the very numerous equity feminists (many listed by Pinker), are not feminists or supporters of feminism. She meets every criteria of being feminist and has written extensively about supporting feminism. Furthermore, as I directly referenced, "all that has been called feminism" includes first and second wave feminism, which were, and continue to be, the form of feminism referred to as equity feminism. Furthermore, your designation of Pinker's field as not being feminism is, itself, not a requirement of BLP, and you are pulling a "No True Scotsman". That is, you are defining a very narrow group of people as the only ones allowed to dictate who is called a feminist or not, and those people are the ones that Sommers criticizes. You are cherry-picking the answer here by defining feminism as only what modern radical feminists say it is, and only modern radical feminists get to decide who gets to be designated by that term. Sommers herself does work in feminism, as a feminist, and promotes feminism, and even that is declared here to be not good enough. This is all completely opposite to the intent and spirit of Wikipedia and the neutrality of BLP. Dashing Leech (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Despite their visibility, gender feminists do not speak for all feminists, let alone for all women."

Is this merely a lot of "No True Scotsman" being thrown about here ? The idea that there cannot be different branches or views that can all be described as feminism. I mean to give a rather relevant example can you only believe in Islam if you are a member of I.S.I.S or are plenty of people who believe in Islam objecting to I.S.I.S and their interpretation of an ideology. dwavenhobble (talk) 17:25 24 November 2014 (UTC)
We should not be doing any of this analysis. We should be finding those reliable sources who have discussed and analyzed Sommers and her work and summarizing them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
And this is exactly what I've done above, but you dismissed. I found reliable sources who have discussed and analyzed Sommers and her work and summarized them. Pinker does exactly that over 3-4 pages. She received a 2013 Exceptional Merit in Media Awards (EMMAs) from the National Women's Political Caucus, a "multi-partisan grassroots organization in the United States dedicated to recruiting, training, and supporting women who seek elected and appointed offices" whose founders include "Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Height, Myrlie Evers, several congresswomen, heads of national organizations, and others who shared the vision of gender equality including Dolores Delahanty of Kentucky and writer and journalist Letty Cottin Pogrebin" and who believe that "legal, economic and social equity would come about only when women were equally represented among the nation's political decision-makers." The NWPC's description of her winning article [1] even describes it as asking "should we acknowledge the roots of feminism and strive for equal education for all?". Even Gloria Steinem founded feminist organizations award her for feminism work, and this is insufficient to call her a feminist, or in support of feminism? I ask that you refrain from doing the exact analysis that you suggest others do not do. All posted criteria have been met. Dashing Leech (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nwpc.org/2013emmawinners
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_3&oldid=647975363"