Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 29 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christina Hoff Sommers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Template:WikiProject LibertarianismPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Men's Issues This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Gamergate sanctions

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 , 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 with a feminist writing award, and for asking "should we acknowledge the roots of feminism and strive for equal education for all". Even multiple Misplaced Pages 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)

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. 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. ––– (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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

CHSommers disputing content of article.

Ms Sommers today tweeted "My Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 - Misplaced Pages 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)

Classification of Equity feminism

The first line in the section "Ideas and Views claims that "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes equity feminism as libertarian and socially conservative." While the former is supported by the source supplied, the latter isn't. From the source section 2.2.3 Socially Conservative Equity Feminism,

"Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000). To be sure, equity feminism as described here is a form of classical-liberal or libertarian feminism."

This claims that **some** are socially conservative, not equity feminists in general. It even goes on to clarify that in the article that equity feminism is described as classical-liberal or libertarian. The sentence is misquoting the source. I suggest the following rewrite:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes equity feminism as classical-liberal or libertarian with some members being socially conservative.

SirArren (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence, as written, does not even seem to be about Sommers. It does not mention her by name. Why place it in this article? Also, please sign your posts. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

signed, sorry. I'm still getting around wiki. I don't know why it's in the article in the first place. And as is, it's misconstruing the source. SirArren (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since that material as it is currently written is not even about Sommers, it should simply be removed. An admin could do this, as they can edit through article protection. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She coined the term/invented it. Should we remove Einstein's general theory of relativity from his bio? We can add her name back but you've objected to every factual and neutral portrayal of her. Her socially conservative stance is not nearly as attributable than equity feminism. --DHeyward (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also The immediate following sentence is unsourced(where does she say there are acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism?) and then the sentence following that isn't supported by its source. On page 22 of "Who stole feminism?" http://books.google.com/books?id=EIUtJziqIqAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q=Enlightenment%20principles%20of%20individual%20justice&f=false

She says that 18th century feminists "grounded their demands in Enlightenment principles of justice." She does not describe equity feminism with this. Rather she describes the 18th century feminists with this description. She directly describes equity feminists in this line(on the same page)

"A First Wave, 'mainstream,' or 'equity' feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, without discrimination.

SirArren (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the acceptable/non-acceptable line should be removed. Your quote is also accurate and was in the lead prior to the addition of negative material (I added it but I believe it was reverted). --DHeyward (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of critics dispute Anita Sarkeesian as a feminist but nobody adds this on her page (as it shouldn't). Who could have ever approved of this? The classical definition of feminism is still a movement for female empowerment and equality of the genders. In which she fits in 100% fix this POV as soon as possible, wikipedia becomes worse and worse have you seen that according to wikipedia "white people" are a social construct and "black people" are an ethnicity? This kind of SJW insanity belongs on a personal blog not in an encyclopaedia. Helester (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All ethnicities are social constructs for your information. But neither being black or white is an ethnicity. They are racial categories. Being African-American or an Irish-American are ethnicities. And what you have heard wikipedia says is not what it actually says about those two things. When there is wide debate among feminists about Sommers status within the feminist movement then of course the article needs to note that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here. Its the unequal treatment of topics Sjws love and hate. C.H.S gets a whole lot of criticism, while all the criticism A.S received was "forgotten" and they only included it as "harassment". This is not based on facts its based on opinions and on unequal treatment of topics. Either we include it in both or in neither of them. In my opinion articles should be neutral and a lot of articles show the conservative opinion of the sjws instead of being neutral like they claim. Helester (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that, we cannot enforce "equal" treatment of articles. Who ever participates in writing a given article decides how it is to be covered - using the sources at hand. If Sarkeesian has been critiqued in reliable sources then that should be included. If reliable sources describe the "critique" as harrassment then it should be described that way in the article. But this article is about Sommers, who I dont believe has been involved in the Gamergate thing except maybe as a stooge paraded by one or more of the sides involved. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just try to get an equal wording on the "White People" and on the "Black People" page, I dare you to try it. I promise you you wont be able to. Same here, if the SJWs dog pile facts do not matter any more. Also you seem to forget that the media talks about the most interesting story's and not about the most truthful ones. C.H.S for example also received harassment but she deals differently with it which is the reason why the media cant write a "bawww" story about it, and they would if they were given the chance to. Does that mean she didn't get any? If a popular group of people would start doubting the status of an apple as a fruit although it full fills all category's would we include that some people doubt it? Helester (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition phrase in the articles White people and Black people are not identical, but they are completely equivalent in contents - describing both as social constructions with different social and political implications. There is not good reason they should be verbatim equivalent. If CHS "deals differently" with the harrassment she receives that is her choice, and will of course be reflected in the sources. Misplaced Pages articles reflect the sources. We have no requirement for or possibility of representing both sides in exactly the same ways. We have to represent them as the sources do. And yes if the consensus in reliable sources regarding the status of citrus fruits to other fruits started to shift then we would have to report that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 24 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 Misplaced Pages 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 and the version from July (pre GamerGate) . 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 good enough? --Eldritcher (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

When it became inconvenient for their biased POV pushing. Q 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. --Eldritcher (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2014 a

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per the Misplaced Pages: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: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 24 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". --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 25 November 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Potential third party sources

Here is a good source critiquing Hoff Sommers's views of ethics.

• Miller, Seumas (2010). The Moral Foundations of Social Institutions: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge University Press. pp. 184–. ISBN 9780521767941. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

A critique of Hoff Sommers critique of rape stats

• Raphael, Jody (2013). Rape is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis. Chicago Review Press. pp. 201–. ISBN 9781613744796. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

A critique of Hoff Sommers's general critiquing methods

• Superson, Anita M.; Cudd, Ann E. (2002-01-01). Theorizing Backlash: Philosophical Reflections on the Resistance to Feminism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 49–. ISBN 9780742513747. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts, TheRedPenOfDoom. It confuses matters not to sign them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:31, 26

November 2014 (UTC)

Also

• Rhonda Hammer. 2002. Antifeminism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is a BLP article

Seriously the POV-pushing WP:UNDUE needs to be taken out of the lead. The subject is rightfully really annoyed. She is a feminist, she's not anti-feminist.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS call her anti-feminist and the wiki article reflects that fact. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't see anything wrong with someone being anti-feminist, some people would regard being identified as anti-feminist as defamatory. That being the case, it is your responsibility to show that calling Sommers an anti-feminist is justified under WP:BLP. I think you'll find doing that only leads to trouble. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a misapplication of BLP. First, negative content is allowed if it's sourced well and the person is well-known enough. Second, it's not defamatory to be called antifeminist. While some people consider antifeminism misogynistic, we aren't calling her a misogynist (which would be defamatory if said in Misplaced Pages's voice). I can see an argument for the attribution of the use of "antifeminist", but frankly it is not a negative enough label to require such imho. Where the label "antifeminist" requires such attribution or is considered defamatory is more an issue for WP:BLPN (though there's already 2 conversations there about Sommers started by SatansFeminist). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't need a lecture on BLP. I am quite aware that it does allow negative content, and have pointed that out myself on occasion. If you understood BLP, you would realize that anything that is even potentially negative or controversial, which definitely does include "anti-feminist", needs the highest standard of sourcing. It may be acceptable to say that sources have called her anti-feminist, but saying that she is anti-feminist, in Misplaced Pages's voice, is never going to be acceptable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We differ on "potentially negative or controversial". Take it to BLPN if you're so concerned. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issue here is calling someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist and writes (well referenced) feminist works, an anti-feminist. Cyrenbyren (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please actually read BLP. It is not an issue to report what is widely reported. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I will quote it for you. Under "Challenged or likely to be challenged":

Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.

Cyrenbyren (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While i thank you for quoting the policy, my next question is to ask why you think that is relevant? the article quite clearly cites the claims made and there is no shortage of other academic sources that could be added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant because of the context it is presented. She clearly labels herself as an "equity feminist", and her work is mainly focused on feminism. Claiming that she is an anti-feminist in this context can be quite controversial for how she is viewed as an academic. As she is a well published academic with a large amount of references to her work, applying the aforementioned paragraph in the WP:BLP guidelines, requiring the use of inline quotes explicitly stating what is being said and by whom. This is not done here. Cyrenbyren (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If her work is viewed as antifeminist, then it is viewed as anti feminist and that is not a BLP issue. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote her personal perception, it is here to present the way it is viewed by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that perhaps there are different views among "mainstream academics"? Or is that too difficult a concept? ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

please demonstrate that the view "anti-feminist" is not one of (if not the) major view held by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the point is being challenged, which is why its a BLP issue. If you feel, and can find reliable references, that it is valuable to the article, cite those references inline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrenbyren (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you reading? the one i see DOES have inline cites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I am reading the current article. There are no inline quotes stating she is anti-feminist. Thr closest thing even relating to this is a a review of "The war against boys", and it does not even make that claim. The statement is in the lede, as well, and while the lede do not have the same requirements for quouts and references as the main article, I highly doubt that means it allows BLP violations. Cyrenbyren (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What statement(s) in the article identifying her work "antifeminist" is not sourced? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• High-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Unknown-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Start-Class Men's Issues articles
• Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• C-Class Women writers articles
• Unknown-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles