Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Removal of material (again)

Regarding this edit, I frankly find it baffling that anyone would remove so much material about Who Stole Feminism?, which is the book Sommers is best known for, while keeping so much material about The War Against Boys, which is a less well-known work that is not so central to her reputation. The edit leaves the article unbalanced and appears unjustifiable. The editor who removed the material compared it to summarizing the plot of Harry Potter novels in the J. K. Rowling article. The comparison is misleading. The material removed was only partially a summary of the actual contents of Who Stole Feminism?; part of it also concerned the reaction to the book. Cutting back the material might have been justified, but not removing all but the barest mention of the book's contents (which is now uncited, which is unacceptable in itself). If the reason for the removal was that Who Stole Feminism? has its own article, I have to point out that there is no reason why information cannot be mentioned in more than one article if it is relevant to more than one article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed it because we already contain the information in the article linked - we don't have an article on 'The War Against Boys', however. I'd prefer we did have a seperate article on 'The War Against Boys', and contained a small summary here, instead of reproducing the articles in full in this article which strikes me as kind of dumb. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That we "already contain the information in the article linked" is not a reason for removing all of the material you removed. As I said, there is no problem in mentioning information relevant to more than one article in more than one article. You suggest no actual reason why it would be wrong to include a given piece of information in more than one article, and of course there isn't one. You removed material that is obviously of crucial relevance to this article, including the criticism of Sommers from feminist groups and her response to that criticism, and in doing so you measurably lowered the quality of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an article on Sommers. We similarly don't include reams of material from our article on novels (to explain what a novel is) or our article on polemics (to explain what polemics are). We should only include material where relevant to Sommers. Book reviews are not relevant to Sommers. The inclusion of this sentence 'Melanie Kirkpatrick of the Hudson Institute, writing in The Wall Street Journal, praised the book for its "lack of a political agenda. ... Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another."' does absolutely nothing for the readers understanding of the subject of this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I came to this article to get some background on Sommers, and I also thought that the deletion was excessive. This is like saying that we should delete the invasion of Normandy from the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, because the invasion has its own article. If you want to reduce the summary to a 400-word paragraph that would cover the essentials -- if you can do a good job -- and then link to the article on the book, that would be acceptable to me. This is a major book, which introduces me to her thinking, and reducing that book to a one-sentence summary doesn't tell me what I need to know. Wikipedia style, like WP:NOTJOURNAL, require articles to be self-contained; you can't write a Wikipedia article that requires people to click on links to understand the article, and you can't understand Sommers without understanding her books. We do include reviews; reviews are WP:RS secondary sources and are the foundation of Wikipedia. I don't like WP:PEACOCK quotes, but we should have quotes that make substantive arguments. And I disagree with you on the Kirkpatrick quote. Sommers claims to have no political agenda and to be concentrating on facts. I'm not convinced that it's true, but I might want to read Kirkpatrick's review to see how she supports that claim.--Nbauman (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth wrote, "This is an article on Sommers. We similarly don't include reams of material from our article on novels (to explain what a novel is) or our article on polemics (to explain what polemics are). We should only include material where relevant to Sommers. Book reviews are not relevant to Sommers." Wrong. Of course book reviews are "relevant to Sommers" if they are about books she wrote. The reviews affect her image, either positively or negatively, and they obviously concern her. Despite what you may think, it is normal to mention reviews of books written by a particular author in an article about that author. Try removing all mention of reviews of books by given authors from articles about those authors and you would be reverted and rightly so. There is no case for simply removing outright all mention of how an author's books were reviewed from an article about them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We should probably trim both sections and combine them. Devoting a section to each book is excessive - regardless of which she's better known for, neither had much long-term impact in academia; skimming the recent coverage of her, they rarely get any in-depth coverage. Mentioning them is fine, of course, since they helped make her reputation, but a one-sentence summary of each is fine - detailed examination of what they say and the coverage they received at the time is better confined to their own articles. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Those of Sommers' writings that have ignited a debate in the media should be discussed in appropriate depth in this biography article. Observers have often used her works as an occasion for comments about her expressed viewpoints, arguing against them or praising them, so we should summarize these responses to her writings, as they reveal for the reader how Sommers is judged by topic scholars and the media. A review of a political book tells a great deal about the thinking of the author. The fawning puffery must go, but the book reviews should be restored. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"The fawning puffery must go, but the book reviews should be restored." This is the makings of a violation of WP:NPOV. I strongly disagree with this opinion. S806 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck getting consensus to include fawning puffery. Doesn't seem at all likely. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume that the reason why the comment from Kirkpatrick is there is simply to illustrate the positive responses Who Stole Feminism? received from some. That's reasonable in principle. If there were some other way of illustrating the positive side of the book's reception without mentioning that specific review of the book, then it can always be replaced with something else. Doing so may well be desirable. Removing all mention of positive responses to the book while keeping the mention of negative responses is not exactly neutral, however... FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is another example of something that is not neutral: this edit by Binksternet, which removed a positive comment about Sommers's work with the explanation that the comment was "completely false"! Binksternet, you as a reasonably experienced editor should know very well that editors are not supposed to remove material about contentious subjects (or anything, really) just because they personally disagree with it. Would you like a patronizing lesson about Wikipedia's basic content policies, which I am ready and willing to deliver? I hope you will simply use better judgment in future, and that the patronizing lesson can be avoided. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the quote is puffery. The source is a fellow traveler of Sommers, a woman who holds reactionary social views.[1] The woman, Melanie Kirkpatrick, has no independent notability. She praises the book as part of her paid work to push a politically conservative point of view. Her words here are not important enough for us to bother with. That's the reason why I removed the quote. Beyond that, I also believe personally that the quote is totally wrong, as it portrays Who Stole Feminism as having no political agenda. A quick digital search shows that the book contains at least 90 instances of the words "political", "politics" and "politically". In the book, Sommers repeatedly describes feminism in the context of political changes and movements. So not only is Melanie Kirkpatrick not famous enough to quote, and the chosen quote a perfect example of puffery, and Kirkpatrick a paid political operative who is politically aligned with Sommers, but she's also totally wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Our job is not to determine what is right or wrong. That would violate WP:NOR S806 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize for the reader all the important things published about a topic. Kirkpatrick's review is not important. See WP:WEIGHT. If someone here disagrees, the onus is on those who wish to include this bit, to show that the bit is important enough. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time to argue with you all day. I strongly disagree with your personal editing policy on this page. I personally like to discuss and find consensus before making contentious changes. I guess not everybody agrees. S806 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, you may wish to review WP:NPOV, which states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Kirkpatrick's review was published in The Wall Street Journal, which does qualify as a reliable source, at least as far as I'm aware. Per WP:SOURCES, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." Such publications are listed as including, "Mainstream newspapers". Also, contrary to what you may think, Wikipedia does not actually have a policy insisting that we must not report the views of people whom Wikipedia editors allege to have "reactionary social views" or even people whom Wikipedia editors assert have "no independent notability." Your personal opinion that Kirkpatrick's views are either not important or incorrect is irrelevant. Now, wasn't that patronizing? As for the issue of weight, WP:WEIGHT states that, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." A reasonable conclusion would be that this means that, in a case where someone published a controversial book that received both positive and negative reactions, that we mention that it received both positive and negative reactions. It's not that difficult. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's NPOV that I'm upholding by removing puffery from Kirkpatrick who is a colleague of Sommers at the Hudson Institute. They are both pushing their political views, and in any case, the selected quote from Kirkpatrick is empty praise, not worthy of inclusion. WEIGHT is also on my side, as Kirkpatrick is not considered an important thought leader by the media. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Where does WP:NPOV say that if someone works for the Hudson Institute, Wikipedia must never report or mention their views? Or that if someone is a colleague of a particular person, then their views must never be mentioned in an article about that person? Also, where does WP:WEIGHT say that someone's views should not be mentioned if they are not "considered an important thought leader by the media"? How do you suppose Wikipedia's policies actually support what you are saying? You are employing a double standard by suggesting that the comments from Kirkpatrick should be removed because they push her political views while not objecting to the mention of criticism of Sommers from a feminist group, criticism which obviously pushes its political views. You suggest that Kirkpatrick's views should be removed because she is not "considered an important thought leader by the media"; do you have evidence that the feminist who criticized Sommers, Laura Flanders, is "considered an important thought leader by the media"? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the place for it, but I'd like to add my voice to those who are claiming that the section on The War Against Boys clearly violates WP:NPOV, by overwhelmingly quoting negative views of the book, and at greater length than the few positive comments it cites. (That last feature, of course, isn't a function of there just being more negative reviews). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Laura Flanders the journalist and TV commentator is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, so that's a strong basis for inclusion here. Many other critics of Sommers are scholars, and scholarly writings are top level sources on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my concern wasn't with the negative sources that are quoted, but with the fact that it's overwhelmingly negative sources that are quoted. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the WP:Neutral point of view policy. If the sources are overwhelmingly negative then that's what we convey to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, I've just added a sentence from a scholarly review which wasn't quoted as a contribution to the effort of making that section of the article accurately reflect the reception that the book received. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

An EBSCO search for "Who Stole Feminism" produced some 148 hits, and while it is true that many of these are reviews or other commentary written in 1994 or 1995, there is also (for example) a review in Spectra from 2004, showing that Sommers's book was still a subject of discussion at least a decade after its publication. I don't know what the claim that the book did not have "much long-term impact in academia" is based on. Properly explaining Sommers's ideas obviously requires more than a single sentence so no, a "one-sentence summary of each" is not fine. The "selected works" section is quite short and there is no reason to cut it back further. Listing all of Sommers's works would be excessive had she written or edited as many books as say Isaac Asimov, but of course she hasn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

user:PeterTheFourth, book reviews are specifically listed in WP:RS WP:NEWSORG. Could you explain why you believe "Book reviews are not relevant to Sommers"? --Nbauman (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe we should be removing positive reviews. A review is a review. A person doesn't have to be a scholar or a phd to give a book review. While not all reviews are equal, I see nothing wrong with including a review from the wall street journal. It would be dishonest, and attack editing to only include negative reviews. ProtoNexus (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is of crucial importance whether we include the specific review by Kirkpatrick or not. What is important is that the article acknowledge that the book did receive positive reactions from some reviewers (Binksternet apparently disagrees and thinks we should report only negative views). The quote from Kirkpatrick can of course be replaced with something else if it does a better job of summarizing the positive side of the book's reception. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to see positive reviews that are truthful in their portrayal of the book, and specific in their approval of this or that idea expressed by Sommers. The positive reviews that are puffery – not so much. A perfect example of puffery is "Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another." A perfect example of untruthful portrayal is that the book Who Stole Feminism has no political agenda (this from a fellow Hudson Institute associate.[2][3]) So please find some specific praise of the ideas expressed by Sommers in her books, and I will not delete it. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you have adopted an utterly negative and hostile attitude to Sommers and her work, you will excuse me if I am not convinced that you would accept that there actually are any "positive reviews that are truthful in their portrayal of the book". If it has to be repeated that what you (or me, or any other Wikipedia editor) considers truthful is irrelevant, then that's unfortunate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"I am happy to see positive reviews that are truthful in their portrayal of the book" Again, this is original research. It isn't up to you to determine what is truthful and what isn't. That is why we rely on sources. Reviews are reviews, and are based on opinion. S806 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's trivially easy to see when the reviewer is talking about something that is indeed found in the book, or when they are denying things covered thoroughly in the book. We as Wikipedians are responsible for summarizing for the reader the writings about a topic, especially telling the reader about major/mainstream/consensus viewpoints, but also minor viewpoints that are represented well enough in the literature to include here. If a writer is obviously wrong on some point, then the various editors who are interested in the topic can discuss what to do with the wrong "fact". This happens all the time on article talk pages. So here we have a minor writer expressing a viewpoint that is unsupported by the book itself. (Who Stole Feminism supposedly has no political agenda, but it discusses the politics of feminism at great length.) What to do? I say it's clear that we a) find another positive quote from Kirkpatrick, one that is substantial and substantiated, or b) remove the Kirkpatrick praise altogether. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to choose C) vote to keep the Kirkpatrick quote in, because there is nothing wrong with it. It's a review from a legitimate reviewer, from a legitimate website, and a perfectly valid source. I'm sorry you feel so strongly about it, but I'm not going to vote to take out a valid quote, simply because you don't like it. S806 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on whoever wants to keep the bit to show that it's relevant here. It's the kind of empty praise found on book covers. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you keep saying that, shows you have no idea how WP works. I'm sorry, but you're simply not going to remove that line without consensus. Build consensus for the change you want. Don't try to bully people to bow to your vision. S806 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Kirkpatrick's position with the Hudson Institute began in 2010. The review was written in 1994; sixteen years earlier. At that time, she was employed full time by the WSJ. There may be reasons to exclude the review, but Kirkpatrick's current position is not one. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that apart from this[4] (a "bio" page containing only Hoff Sommers name), which is not linked from the list page of fellows & experts[5], I was unable to find anything suggesting that Hoff Sommers has done any work for the Hudson Institute. (Not that this would be an impediment to inclusion, of course). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this one quote such an issue for some people? Why is this the hill to die on? This one single quote has been stable on the page for a long time. Leave it on. ProtoNexus (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The quote is puffery. It was used by the publisher as promotional copy on the book jacket. The quote was added 3.5 years ago by someone who didn't even have the original source available, just the book publisher's version. The flattery expressed in the quote is indicative of the state of this article. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We have the source now though, and it's a real and very legitimate source. I'm still not following why you have an issue with it, unless as others suggested, your issue is that it's a positive review. ProtoNexus (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we really have the source? South African editor Willhesucceed, who edited disruptively and non-neutrally with a pro-Gamergate, pro-Breitbart, anti-liberal, anti-feminist stance, was the one who added the Kirkpatrick quote and supplied the reference back in September 2014, as part of an editing sequence in which he reduced negative text and added the empty praise. Willhesucceed did not supply a URL or a page number, and his selected quotes were composed exactly the same as the book publisher's promotional work, carrying only the author name, the same wrong date, and the newspaper name, so it's clear he was taking the quote from the book promotion and not from the Wall Street Journal review, which had been published 20 years prior. The date he wrote was July 1, 1994, but Id4abel editing in 2016 found that the review was published on July 14.[6] I think it would be interesting to see more of what Kirkpatrick wrote about the book, but all we have are these two pull quotes. I challenge the editors here to bring more of the Kirkpatrick review here, to see if we can find a specific idea of Sommers that was praised, and to see if the two pull quotes are representative of the overall review. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Now you're talking about gamergate and breitbart? I don't even know what gamergate is, but who cares if a person is pro-breitbart. If we look at your history, and find you are pro-feminism, should we get to discount your edits as biased? This is the exact reason why WP has a rule. WP:ASG You seem to have a very very hard time with that rule. WP:ASG. Always assume good faith on all editors, no matter what their personal views are. S806 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

ASG doesn't mean ignore evidence in front of your eyes. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think Binksternet is the only one in Talk who believes the quote is puffery. Am I correct? I think we have consensus that it should go in, and editors should feel free to restore it. Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Further to my previous comment, above: As Kirkpatrick's role with the Hudson Institute commenced 16 years after the publication of her review for the WSJ, and she was a WSJ staffer at the time of writing the review, I will be removing the text of the Hudson Institute and amending the text writing in The Wall Street Journal to writing for The Wall Street Journal. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't see a compelling reason to do this, see reasons not to do it (e.g. let readers know who people are.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

But we're not letting readers know who is the author of the WSJ's review. The author of the review was Melanie Kirkpatrick, WSJ staff (1994 version). We're identifying the author as Melanie Kirkpatrick, Hudson Institute (2010+ version); and by doing so we imply that when Kirkpatrick wrote the review she worked for or represented the HI. That is distinctly misleading, and is a synthesis of the review itself and some unknown source; perhaps Kirkpatrick's resume?. We also imply that the review was an op-ed, not the "official" WSJ review. Also distinctly misleading.
Melanie Kirkpatrick, ofwho in 2010 joined the Hudson Institute, writing in a 1994 review for The Wall Street Journal ... would be accurate, but is as ridiculous as it reads.
In an ideal world, we might turn the red link to blue and allow readers to find out more about Kirkpatrick, and her career, by reading a BLP; we'd also address the content gender gap by doing so. But in the meantime, absence is better than misleading. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't roleplay as people from 1994 when we write about something that happened in 1994. Melanie Kirkpatrick is of the Hudson Institute, and that helps inform the reader (who can already see that they were writing for the WSJ). It's as simple as that. If you really think it's that confusing, perhaps you should start a seperate talk page section? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Sommers rejects such claims"

Since the above statement is cited only to Hoff Sommers' Twitter account, I've removed it per WP:BLPSELFPUB. It's (1) a self-serving claim, and (2) doesn't even respond to her published critics, but to her Wikipedia page. It's as though she's being allowed to edit this very page, though one step removed. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states that denials of "allegations" should be included, but the "allegation" here is simply that Sommers is an antifeminist, which is how numerous authors, published by reputable academic publishers, have characterized her. So, for the sake of WP:WEIGHT, I don't think we should include her "denial" here. (It's not as though she's refuting an accusation of misconduct or criminal activity). Plus, the Wikipedia self-reference is just too bizarre. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Where the subject has specifically denied claims about themselves we woudl be doing a disservice not to include their denial, although this doesn't mean that the initial claim is false or that we are under any obligation to remove it. As Sommers specifically refers to this article and a claim on it, it is reasonable to include her denial, but to also retain the claims of other people that she is antifeminist. There is no problem with using a self published source for information about the author in this way, as we are under no doubt that it was Sommers who posted the tweet. - Bilby (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure nobody doubts the authorship of the tweet. The issue, as I've stated, is that since Hoff Sommers' reputation (and therefore income) rests on being seen as a feminist, albeit a contrarian one, it's an unduly self-serving statement. If no reputable opinion journals or book publishers have seen fit to publish such a claim by Hoff Sommers, then to quote her saying so would lend the statement undue weight without secondary sources to back it up. . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a secondary source. We need to ask if it is reasonable and fair, given NPOV and considering that this is about a living person, to include a very short statement that she has denied some claims made about her. It seems to me that it is. If we were to use her statement to remove content, or to write an extensive piece, then there would be an issue, but we're talking about four words. - Bilby (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"If no reputable opinion journals or book publishers have seen fit to publish such a claim by Hoff Sommers". Right there in the lead: "Sommers' positions and writing have been characterized by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "equity feminism"". A four word sentence does not seem unduly self serving. And if a LP gets annoyed enough about something in their Wikipedia article to say 'This is wrong', I think that should be noted. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The claim that doesn't appear to have received independent coverage, or even a published piece by Hoff Sommers in an independent outlet to support it, is that Hoff Sommers is not an antifeminist as others claim. She says "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an 'opponent' of feminism." I don't know what the article said in November 2014, but it doesn't say that now, so the tweet is factually wrong in any case. We don't allow subjects to edit their own pages, and mainspace is not a forum for subjects to dispute their coverage in Wikipedia. That's what the talk page is for. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we can say that a source which describe her as an "equity feminist" are disagreeing with sources that describe her as "anti-feminist". Here is the old page version she seems to be responding to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&oldid=635590234 NPalgan2 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree; that's going beyond what sources actually state, and has nothing to do with Hoff Sommers "rejecting" any claims. I don't see the word "opponent", which Hoff Sommers put in quotes, in the permalinked version at all. The closest thing to it is the statement "Although some critics refer to her as anti-feminist...", but that's not even in Wikipedia's voice. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree the statement is unduly self-serving. It's as if we are telling the reader that scores of scholars defining her as anti-feminist or describing her career as working against feminism can be lightly dismissed by one self-published "not true" statement. The balance is completely wrong. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly; all those published critiques of her work, and the only rebuttal we can find by her is a tweet about her Wikipedia page? Definitely undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This biography would be better balanced by representing the thoughts of at least a dozen of the most prominent scholars who classify her as an opponent to feminism. And then we would summarize those additions to the article by adding something about it to the lead section, saying that Sommers is considered by many scholars of feminism (not some) to be opposed to feminism. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that we remove the description of her as anti-feminist presented by some scholars. But is it really undue to use four words to say that she disagrees with this characterization? Surely her view that she is not anti-feminist is worth some small weight. However, if you want sources for her belief that she is, in fact, a feminist: The Washington Examiner, RNZ, USA Today, Broadsheet, The Weekly Standard, NYT, Reason, The Washington Examiner. We won;t have a hard time finding articles that say that Sommers views herslef as a feminist - even if those articles then argue that she is not. Her views may not be compatible with feminism, many people may feel that she is antifeminist, but it is clear that she does describe herself as a feminist even if only as a particular, narrow type. - Bilby (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying we should elevate the "opposes feminism" assessment to the lead section, which currently says nothing about that aspect, about her being a contrarian. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, so long as we don't attempt to quantify the view of her without a source, (we can't really say "most" unless we can source it), and we return the statement that she disputes the claims. It was in the lead before "... some critics refer to her as anti-feminist", but it was removed. - Bilby (talk)

I agree that we should ideally have a source that evaluates the overall scholarly view of Hoff Sommers' work, per WP:BALANCE. But failing that, I think there's enough in the talk archives to say something like ...while her work at times has been characterized as anti-feminist... in the lead section while expanding the text in the body, just as a matter of due weight. That Hoff Sommers calls herself a feminist is not in question, but using media statements to that effect to counter her scholarly reception as anti-feminist would be improper synthesis. (Several of the above sources are unusable anyway except as attributed opinion, or are overly partisan, see WP:RS/P.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly ok with adding that to the lead. But I think it is best to retain her denial of that characterisation as well. I'll add the latter back; you are welcome to add the text to the lead. - Bilby (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The concern raised here, and not laid to rest, is that her self-published denial would be given undue weight if we relayed it to the reader. I think it's enough to tell the reader what kind of feminist she considers herself, as reported by more sympathetic sources. Then we follow that with a summary of scholarly thought, to say she works against feminism, or words to that effect. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to include, under the label "scholarly thought", the views only of Sommers's critics. "Scholarly thought" includes a range of views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly reception

I note that Binksternet, Bilby, and FreeKnowledgeCreator have already taken part in a lengthy discussion about Sommers' scholarly reception. In that discussion, references from scholars who accept Hoff Sommers' self-description as a feminist were requested early on, yet no one seems to have provided any. It would have probably have been better to frame that discussion more neutrally at the outset, but nonetheless, the majority opinion among the cited scholars seems to be that Hoff Sommers is an antifeminist who calls herself a feminist. The article should reflect these views, unless a similar number of high-quality sources are found to refute them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I wish now that I had taken the time to bring a summary of those sources into the biography, but I was faced with constant revert warring by Motsebboh, who was later indeffed as a sockpuppet of Badmintonhist. Back then it would have been a real gamble for me to decide this was the hill I was going to die on, and push for scholarly representation. I might not be here today.

Archive 5 also has a list suggesting scholars and sources, the list representing those who have termed Sommers an antifeminist, or who have described her career as one of working against feminism. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I never like having this argument, as I am very, very far from being a supporter of Sommers. I disagree with much of what she argues, and while I'm not personally inclined to go with anti-feminist, at the same time I can see the point. But we always get back to what it means to have an NPOV biography about a living person, and the importance of that over personal views.

With that out of the way, we have a lot of sources describing Sommers as an "equity feminist", (expected as one of the people most connected with the term), many of high quality. We also have sources describing equity feminism type of feminism, including the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Equity feminism is, I'd argue, an extreme form of feminism, but while there are those who do not recognize it as a type of feminism, most of the literature does seem to do so. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that if Sommers is an equity feminist, and if equity feminism is a type of feminism, then Sommers can be regarded as a type of feminist. We can grab plenty of scholarly sources discussing Sommers as an equity feminist and describing her as a type of feminist, even if they are overall critical of her work and stance - for example, Diana Schaub's "Sisters at odds" in The Public Interest, Brannigan in the Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics; and McDermott's "On Cultural Authority: Women's Studies, Feminist Politics, and the Popular Press" in Signs.

If what you want is sources specifically saying "Sommers is not an anti-feminist", then this is unsurprisingly hard to find, as most scholarly works aren't going to be involved in the sort of back-and-forth that this would entail. We do know - and can source - that Sommers has said such, specifically in relation to this article, and Cathy Young has quoted Sommer's denial in Commentary. So in that sense we have a primary and secondary source to justify including her statement that she does not see herself as an anti-feminist. But the risk of imbalance comes from the way these sources are going to be written. We will always have people strongly opposed to Sommers saying that she is an anti feminist, and we'll have others treating her as a feminist and discussing her views of equity feminism, but not many specifically saying "she is not an anti-feminist" or even "Sommers is a feminist", as they are referencing her work, not discussing her credentials. - Bilby (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We will always have people strongly opposed to Sommers saying that she is an anti feminist... Yes, and we will always have people opposed to drowning saying that CO₂ emissions cause sea levels to rise. Their personal "opposition" isn't the point, it's the fact that the opposing viewpoints are published in peer-reviewed journals by respected academics, while the "supporting" viewpoints tend to appear in mass-media commentary. We give greater weight to the former type of source. Do we have specific peer-reviewed or other academic publications that describe Sommers, or her personal brand of equity feminism, as "feminist", full stop? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we have publications that describe her as feminist, and we certainly have publications describing equity feminism as a type of feminism. We also have two references - one secondary - that state that she denies being anti-feminist. - Bilby (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to Cathy Young in Commentary, I question the reliability of such a source for a BLP, but I haven't read it. Can you provide a link? In any case, I don't think it outweighs multiple academic sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we're confusing issues, and it is probably my fault. We have multiple academic sources saying that she is an equity feminist and that equity feminism is a type of feminism. We have two sources (one of which is Cathy Young, one of which is Hoff Sommers) saying that she denies being an anti-feminist. None of this says that we shouldn't say that some scholars view her as anti-feminist, so I'm not sure what you see this outweighing - it is simply that we have alternative sourced views as well. I don't want the claim that some scholars see her as anti-feminist removed from the article, just that I think we need to retain the view that she is seen by some as a feminist as well, and retain her claim (with a secondary source) that she specifically denies being anti-feminist. - Bilby (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no confusion; I knew what you meant. I simply think that what you're proposing is a false balance given the sheer number of academic sources that describe Hoff Sommers as anti-feminist. As for the multiple academic sources saying that she is an equity feminist and that equity feminism is a type of feminism, I haven't seen them. Can you provide links or citations? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I provided at least some above - is this really an issue? Equity feminism is discussed as a type of feminism in academic sources, (see Equity feminism), and she is regarded as an equity feminist. Some academics also see her as anti-feminist. But to be honest, at the moment by "sheer number of academic sources" I think you are referring to four, is that correct? - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Far more than that; I started this thread with a link to an earlier discussion you yourself took part in, where at least ten such sources were quoted at length. See also the earlier list provided by Binksternet, which I assume is the one he's referring to above. There are dozens of sources listed there, which I haven't gone through all of yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It will take me a while to work through them, especially given that so many are names with no ref. Doesn't really change anything, though - although it is nice to see them. - Bilby (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick look so far of ten that I could check, and it didn't come across as straightforward. Two are borderline - they mention antifeminism and Sommers, but could be reasonably interpreted as saying she is antifeminist, just not quite that clearly. Two are definitely describing her as anti-feminist, and a third is also very clear, but it is also summarizing a book so it is a bit debatable if it is the reviewer's opinion rather than the book author's. I'll assume it is shared by the reviewer. One is particularly interesting, describing an "antifeminist frame" ascribed to Sommers that "retains the feminist name" (tricky - antifeminist or both antifeminist and feminist)? Two specifically treat her as a feminist, (but a bad one), two are ambiguous if she is or not. All are critical of her stance, but sometimes the stance is described as antifeminist while Sommers isn't specifically described that way.

Anyway, this is all moot. I've never said that she is not antifeminist. I have never said that we should remove this from the body, nor that we should not mention it in the lede. I just want to be careful about two things: giving the impression that this is a view held by all scholars, and ignoring her own denial that she is antifeminist. - Bilby (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I earlier suggested that we say something like ...while her work at times has been characterized as anti-feminist... I don't think that gives the impression that all scholars hold this view. Nonetheless, if a preponderance of academic sources say this, then for the sake of due weight it should be prominently mentioned in the article. Hoff Sommers' denial of same should not be mentioned as prominently unless equivalent sources discuss it.

The sources I've seen at the earlier thread are indeed discussing Hoff Sommers' writing; it's unlikely that a bunch of scholars would bother to label Sommers an anti-feminist unless it was related to her work as an author and commentator. I don't think we can neatly divide the sources into two camps based on whether or not they characterize Hoff Sommers personally, with those who do representing some kind of biased "opposition". As far as I know, that isn't how academic publishing generally works.

As for the sources that supposedly describe Hoff Sommers as a feminist, I wasn't able to find a relevant entry by "Brannigan in the Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics"; is there a more complete citation? Patrice McDermott in Signs doesn't describe Hoff Sommers as a feminist, but rather one of several "critics of feminsm" whose task is "debunking feminist contentions" (p. 673). She calls Hoff Sommers "the most vocal, most visible, and most well-funded critic of women's studies in the popular press" (p. 669) and that the media attention paid to Hoff Sommers' work has "forced feminists into the position of reacting to, rather than initiating, a public debate about the legitimacy of their cause in terms that have been defined for them by others" (p. 670). The label "equity feminist" is given as Hoff Sommers' own creation; its only use outside quotation marks is in paraphrasing Hoff Sommers herself (p. 670). Diana Schraub in The Public Interest is more sympathetic, saying that Hoff Sommers is a "dissenter" from "the agenda of more militant feminists" (p. 103) and that her work is "an attempt to reclaim feminism" (p. 100). However, The Public Interest is a conservative opinion journal, not a peer-reviewed academic publication, so it's a rather weak source here, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your "equivalent sources" requirement. We continue to get back to a basic principle - Sommers has disputed that she is an "anti-feminist", and her claim that she is a feminist has been covered in secondary sources. To be neutral, and to follow BLP, we just need to make a four word statement that she disagrees that she is anti-feminist, as we had before. The weight issues are managed by doing so in just four words, but if a subject specifically denies an accusation, and if there are secondary sources covering that denial, then it is unreasonable not to include some reference to it. In the past when faced with this issue, the community has always supported such an addition - it is not an unreasonable burden on an article. - Bilby (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Four words may or may not be undue weight depending on how detailed an explanation we give of her critics' response. The only secondary source mentioned so far is Cathy Young's review of Who Stole Feminism? in Commentary, which doesn't mention any specific "accusation"; it seems more like a pre-emptive deflection. Compare that with at least a dozen (and probably several more) peer-reviewed or other academic publications where Hoff Sommers is characterized as anti-feminist, and the weight is clearly on the latter. Despite mentioning WP:PUBLICFIGURE earlier, I'm not sure that there's a BLP problem here; anyone who goes on the record attacking feminist academics can expect an academic response. Academic sources are the best ones to use generally, and their characterizations relate directly to Hoff Sommers' notability. Per NPOV, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". If it's just a single, non-academic secondary source saying Hoff Sommers denies being an anti-feminst, I'd say that qualifies as a "tiny minority" and should probably be left out, at least from the lead section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The minority you are talking about is Sommers. This is not for the lead - this is just to return the four words saying that Sommers disagrees with those calling her an anti-feminist. It will have at least two secondary sources plus Sommers. Are you ok if we return that much to the body? That will be four words with her view that she disagrees with those saying she is anti-feminist, and 80 words in the body explaining the alternative view that she is anti-feminist? - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we can tell the reader in the body of the article that she disagrees with the assessment by many scholars that she is antifeminist or works against feminism. I wouldn't conclude with that, though, as if her stance is superior. I would work it into the middle of a section of scholars. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the question there is, which scholars? Cathy Young's review is from September 1994, earlier than all but one of the scholarly sources provided here, which range all the way up to 2013. If Hoff Sommers has responded to those characterizations, I haven't seen any secondary sources that say so. So when Young states, "Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist", one is tempted to ask, "apropos of what?" Unless this was a response to a published allegation, I don't think we're obliged to give much weight at all to Hoff Sommers' self- assessment. The whole notion that Hoff Sommers is out to "reclaim" feminism smacks of self-promotion to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

We're not giving much weight to Sommers' self-assessment. We're giving 4 words to Sommers on this topic, and 80 words to those who disagree with her. - Bilby (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those four words (Sommers rejects such claims) misleadingly suggest she was responding to criticism that wasn't even published yet. Young is only talking about what Hoff Sommers wrote in Who Stole Feminism?. What other secondary sources support this idea? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that her denial was sourced originally to Sommers, in direct response to claims in this article, we know what she is responding to in that case. The Cathy Young piece reads "Although Who Stole Feminism? is a full frontal assault on the feminist establishment, and on such feminist icons as Gloria Steinem, Susan Faludi, and Naomi Wolf, Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist. Rather, 'I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.'" So while she may not in Young's article be responding to those specific published authors, she is specifically stating that she is not an anti-feminist, so it shouldn't be a problem including that here. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think Hoff Sommers' tweet is usable, as I've stated above. We can't even infer that she was responding to any specific claims; that would be original research. The problem with Young's piece is one of undue weight – Young is the "tiny minority" in this case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are placing unnecessary barriers in the way here. Her Tweet read "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an "opponent" of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always". There's no original research in saying that this relates to claims in Wikipedia that she opposes feminism. Similarly, Young's quote is unambiguous. - Bilby (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Which claims? Her Wikipedia bio at the time said Hoff Sommers is "known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture ... some critics refer to her as anti-feminist". That's not the same as Wikipedia calling her an "'opponent' of feminism", full stop. This is the problem with using social-media posts by the subject as sources for controversial claims. There's no way to know what exactly Hoff Sommers is objecting to. And – I can't stress this enough – Hoff Sommers complaining on Twitter about her Wikipedia bio is not in the same realm as scholarly critiques in peer-reviewed journals. To even suggest the former as a counterpoint to the latter is an extreme form of undue weight, in my opinion. When secondary sources comment on her Twitter complaint, then maybe it would be pertinent. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, this needlessly creating barriers to prevent an article from being neutral. We know what Sommers was referring to - only one part of the article said she opposed feminism. She says she does not oppose feminism, but is a feminist (she woudl be the first to say that she is critical of feminism, so that isn't the concern). We do what we did before - note her disagreement with the claims that she opposes feminism, add some secondary sources saying that she views herself as a feminist instead of an anti-feminist, leave the vast bulk of the text saying that she's viewed as an anti-feminist, and we're good. Easy. No weight problems, secondary as well as primary sources, both sides express but with the weight firmly on the scholarly texts, and NPOV returned. - Bilby (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'd agree that we'd need equivalent sources if we wanted to give her denial equal weight, and we'd need much, much better sources if we wanted to override the view that she is anti-feminist. However, that's not what this addition would do - it would give (as it use to have) much less weight to the claims that she is a feminist, as the sources are not as strong, but it also wouldn't ignore them. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone pinged me above. Though I have not really been interested in participating in this discussion, I generally agree with Bilby's comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Once again, we don't know what Sommers was referring to; the article didn't say what Hoff Sommers is claiming, so it's impossible to know what she really meant. We're just parsing her words for likely meanings – that's original research. As for neutrality, that policy (as well as WP:BLPSELFPUB) suggests we should in fact ignore her claims in this instance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

1+1=2 is not original research. However, how about we just word it as "Sommers denies being an antifeminist". That is fully in keeping with Young and is consistent with her statement on Twitter. - Bilby (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually consistent with Young's review (stresses is not the same as denies), and Young is not a great source anyway. I don't think we should even consider the tweet without a secondary source for it. A lot also depends on where in the article such a statement would go. Would it come after the quote by Alison Jaggar and and the other academic sources where Hoff Sommers is characterized as anti-feminist? If so, that would imply that Hoff Sommers was responding specifically to those critics, which would be improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I figured that would largely be your response, but you really think that when Young states that Sommers' stresses that she is not an anti-feminist, that she isn't also saying that Sommers' denies being an anti-feminist? - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

All of this wrangling to avoid even mentioning that CHS disagrees with a label others have applied to her is unwarranted and presents a BLP issue in my opinion. That it is "original research" to parse "stresses that she is not X" as "denies that she is X" is a total canard. To be clear, Bilby's essential position (that CHS's denial of these claims should receive more than zero space in the article) is correct. Should it receive equal space with well-documented claims to which it responds? No, but no one as far as I can tell has suggested it should.-Starke Hathaway (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, Young's piece is from 1994. What "claims", if any, is she saying Hoff Sommers denied? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a multitude of sources claiming that Sommers is an antifeminist. There is Young stating that Sommers denies being an antifeminist. There is Sommers herself denying being an antifeminist. Any SYNTH objection you might raise here is avoided by simply saying instead that Sommers denies that she is an antifeminist. It really is that simple. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't see what specific accusations she's denying. Depending on where and how we were to state Hoff Sommers' "denial", WP:SYNTH can be a problem if we imply that she's responding to people she hasn't responded to. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what you see or don't see, a sentence to the effect that CHS denies or rejects claims that she is an antifeminist is perfectly clear and understandable to a reasonable reader. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not the issue, nor do we judge whether our readers are "reasonable". The issue is whether the "denial" is at all relevant or duly weighted. Why should any reader care whether Hoff Sommers "stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Because we say "Some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist". If she specifically denies being antifeminist, as she clearly does, how is that denial not relevant to the reader? Should not the reader be informed that she does not view herself as antifeminist, even though some others do view her as such? - Bilby (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Only if a published source explicitly makes the connection between the two. Otherwise it's improper synthesis at best or a false balance at worst. Where did Hoff Sommers specifically deny the allegations cited in the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The allegations in the article that she is antifeminist? When she was quoted by Young who wrote "Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist". But you know that already. - Bilby (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know Hoff Sommers could time-travel. That's a neat trick. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is pointless. There's a clear consensus to add this, with only your odd reasoning trying to argue against it. I'll try and find wording that meets some sort of compromise and add it in. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That you find my reasoning "odd" does not imply a consensus. You appear to be arguing that Hoff Sommers, as quoted in 1994 by Young, was rebutting claims that would not be published for between seven and twenty years, going by the sources in the article. That's illogical, and only supports the idea that the text is an improper synthesis of different sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus with the exception of your views. We've wasted far too much time on this, way more than four words were ever worth. It's time to just fix the issue and move on. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus; my objections have not been adequately addressed, so please do not unilaterally make edits like this. That edit just repeats that Hoff Sommers claims to be a feminist, which the article makes clear already. It's therefore unduly weighted, and it omits this context given by the source: "Sommers was establishing her reputation as a defender of so-called traditional family values against those whom she called radical 'gender feminists' ... Sommers maintains that she is a liberal feminist after the model of John Stuart Mill, but Mill's radical critique of the family places him closer to most contemporary 'gender' feminists than to Sommers." Jaggar devotes half a sentence to Hoff Sommers' self-description out of a whole page refuting that description. Even then, the phrase "liberal feminist in the model of John Stuart Mill" contains plenty of qualifiers, the meaning of which is lost when we say Hoff Sommers considers herself a "feminist", full stop. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The only person objecting is you. You won't accept saying she does not view herself as an antifeminist via Young, because you claim that as she said she this prior to the specific quotes we use saying she is, it is somehow synthesis to connect the two. You also say we can't use her specific statement that she disagrees with the claims in this article, and now you say we can't use the statement from Jagger that Sommers believes herself to be a feminist, even though we do use Jagger to say that she is not. Nowhere in the body of the article do we say that Sommers views herself as a feminist.

It is not synthesis to to take the statement "I am not an antifeminist" and use it to present her view in counter to those arguing that she is, and it is not a problem to use a few words based on Jagger to say that Sommers views herself as a feminist before we say she isn't, especially given that nowhere else in the body of the article do we make this clear. It is very reasonable in a BLP to indicate where the subject disagrees with a characterization, especially in cases where they have specifically responded to the Wikipedia article and have clearly stated their disagreement with the characterization in secondary sources. - Bilby (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere in the body of the article do we say that Sommers views herself as a feminist. I'll concede that, although the plentiful text on Hoff Sommers' advocacy for "equity feminism" does more or less the same thing. It implies that she considers herself an "equity feminist". We're not using Jaggar to say she isn't; Jaggar's statement is given as her own, attributed opinion. It is not synthesis to to take the statement 'I am not an antifeminist' and use it to present her view in counter to those arguing that she is. The only such statement from Hoff Sommers I've seen is her tweet, and yes, it's absolutely improper synthesis to present that statement as a counter to published critiques by scholars. The same goes for Young's piece. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. The conclusion is that Hoff Sommers is responding to these specific scholars. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

All we have to do is say "Although Sommers views herself as a feminist ..." or "Although Sommers denies that her position is antifeminist ...." and we avoid suggesting that she is directly responding to those specific people we reference. That should address your concern. - Bilby (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The word "although" and similar linking words are tricky. They suggest an implicit comparison, which is a form of SYNTH. At the moment, the scholarly references in the article are also standing in for at least ten others that we have direct quotes from. I think Hoff Sommers' scattered "denials" (a paraphrased quote from 1994 which isn't actually a denial and a tweet from 2014) are just too thinly sourced to compare with the weight of scholarly sourcing, whether in four words or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)`

That was the response I expected. There's no point to this. I'll take it elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In the hope of getting some different views, whatever they may be, I've raised this on BLPN. - Bilby (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the original reasons for WP:BLPSELFPUB was to provide for precisely this situation. Her comment should be restored. It's not "unduly self-serving"; she's simply stating that she sees herself as a "strong proponent of equality feminism". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We're still left with the wild imbalance between a personal tweet and tens of scholars publishing in reliable sources. We are allowed to put an official tweet into the article but the question of weight and balance are foremost in this case. We should never imply to the reader that the conclusions of a large number of scholars can be dismissed by one tweet. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: the disputed text read "Sommers rejects such claims". There was nothing in Wikipedia's voice about equality feminism (I thought it was supposed to be equity feminism, but whatever). No one is suggesting we exclude the latter claim altogether, but there are better sources for it than a tweet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)