Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:29, 20 September 2008

Biography Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Gender studies Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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

Early Comments

Does America mean United States here? --Steinsky 23:30, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Note to the last editor, who changed "dissident feminist" to "anti-feminist": please re-read Misplaced Pages's POV statement regarding bias in editing. --Noirdame 22:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sommers and feminism

Cut from intro sentence:

, best known for her questioning of mainstream feminism; a self-described feminist, many consider her to be anti-feminist. She

If she describes herself as a "feminist" that probably does not need a reference. But if opponents say she's not, I'd like to get the names of one or two of the people who are contradicting her - even explain on what basis they do so. Are we talking about different definitions of feminism here? Uncle Ed 16:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Should include somewhere that shes libertarian, preferably in the context of an illuminating point.

Almost every female scientist who deals with gender issues these days calls herself feminist. But if you compare her ideas to mainstream feminism you will find they are opposed to them and on the other hand, if you look at anti-feminist masculist ideas you will find a close relationship between their ideas. She works for a conservative think tank whose aim it is to promote ideas of a certain mindset, in this case traditional role models of gender and family. You will find her ideas fit hand in glove with that. Which is opposed to what most feminists want (change in gender rolles - of both sexes - and change in the structure of society, which Hoff Sommers consicers "gynocentric). --BarbD 19:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. And you will find she is extremely popular within masculist cirles, and the contrary in most feminist cicles, except the libertarian ifeminists, who are also much closer to masculism than to traditional feminism. So it's not only the names of one or two of the people who are contradicting her...-BarbD 19:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't just call her a masculist without giving citations of people who do so. To draw conclusions on your own isn't appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Saying that people say it is not an indication that it isn't true, it's just maintaining a position of reporting facts instead of making one's own theories.

It's much more problematic to talk about CHS differing from mainstream/traditional feminism, as she defines these terms differently than you do. To CHS, she is the traditional, mainstream feminist. So if nothing else, it's confusing, in an article about CHS, to speak of "mainstream" or "traditional" feminism in the non-CHS definition. NickelShoe 19:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The main division between contemporary feminism and masculism is the inclusion of women in the Civil Rights Act of '64 (CRA'64), which is legally based on NO SEX DIFFERENCES. Without CRA'64's inclusion of women there would have been no contemporary feminist movement. Us masculists feel it has been a disaster for both men and women, but even more of a disaster for children. We believe there is no legal basis for "mandated sexual equality" because sex differences are so great. Try to make two things equal that are unequal and there's negative consequences for both. Wendy McElroy is definitely a libertarian and as such would want CRA'64 repealed. Sommers is not so clear in that respect and probably could still be considered in the feminist category from a masculist perspective. McElroy could also be included from a feminist perspective because the feminists in this respect reap what they have sowed, and that is intentionally obfuscating the real meaning of contemporary feminism. Both beleive women are equal...whatever that means. user:QIM

Loving the anonymous editor's latest changes. Wish I had figured out how to make it sound that good. I am slightly concerned with the "original goals" comment, because it sounds a little POV, but maybe it's okay or would be fine with a slight rewording. NickelShoe 15:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Masculist"

Hi all -- we need a source for the description of Sommers as "masculist". I have never heard this term used seriously, only pejoratively, let alone in the context of Sommers. Sdedeo 03:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I recall a weird, angry-looking frumpy guy in a skirt who used to come on Phil Donahue's show and bitch about feminists. He called himself a "masculist" and had some kind of Organization for Men. It was during the time when radical feminism was the insanity du jour, maybe 1988 or thereabouts, contemporaneous with much of Sommers' work. I pretty much agreed with his principles but always considered him a few marbles short as well. Doovinator 03:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, OK. What I am going to do is remove the "masculist" link, but retain the notion that Sommer's "femminist street cred" has been attacked. Sdedeo 03:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) ... which you have already done. Thanks! Sdedeo 04:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, great minds think alike! ;-]

"...fools never differ." ;) . We could really do with some sources for the whole femminist street cred thing; if you know of any articles that are like "Sommers is not a femminist", do please add them as inline citations. Sdedeo 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll look around. Might be able to find a couple. Doovinator 04:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read accurately!

There is no point where I called Sommers a "masculist". I only claimed - which I still think is true - that her ideas are much closer to masculism than to traditional feminism. Maybe I should have kept the word mainstream of feminism. The mainstream of feminism claimes that there has to be a change in gender roles and in the patriarchal structures of society for real equality of men and women. This is exactly what Hoff Sommers attacks. Whereas most masculists claim that a legal and civil equality of man and woman is a just aim and this has been achieved, and that a change in gender roles and of the structure of society is not necessary and asking to much and discriminating against men etc. and that traditional gender roles are perfectly o.k. etc. This is basically what Hoff Sommers says. By the way, there are enough people who are proud to call themselves masculist (I'm not talking about Hoff Sommers), and so it is just a question of your point of view if you find it pejorative or not. --BarbD 17:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is bothering to disagree that she holds masculist ideas (though I don't know if anyone's particularly agreeing either). I believe the point is that you can't just make that assertion on your own without a source. Your own ideas, right or wrong, can't just be put into the article. Without third party sources, it's original research. I also, for the third time (counting equity feminism), object to your use of "mainstream" feminism, and go now to look up where CHS applies this term to herself. Even if she's wrong, in the CHS article it's POV to take sides on the issue, especially when it's not a matter of "fact", since the definitions of words are pretty shaky when it comes to this kind of thing. NickelShoe 17:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here, page 22 of Who Stole Feminism (cited in the article):

The tradition, classically liberal, humanist feminism that was initiated more than 150 years ago was very different. It had a specific agenda, demanding for women the same rights before the law that men enjoyed. The suffrage had to be won, and the laws regarding property, marriage, divorce, and child custody had to be made equitable. More recently, abortion rights had to be protected. The old mainstream feminism concentrated on legal reforms. In seeking specific and achievable ends, it did not promote a gynocentric stance; self-segregation of women had no part in an agenda that sought equality and equal access for women.

Most American women subscribe philosophically to that older "First Wave" kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education. A First Wave, "mainstream," or "equity" feminist wants for women what she wants for everyon: fair treatment, without discrimination.

Now I certainly don't advocate that the article use CHS's definitions without qualifying them as her definitions, because clearly they're in dispute. But I think it's important to make it clear in the article that these terms are in dispute. Part of this quote should probably go in this article and/or the one on equity feminism, but I don't have the time right now. But do you see what I'm getting at? I just think we need to represent it as a debate, not as a situation where right and wrong has already been determined. NickelShoe 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added into the article some explanation of how CHS uses the term mainstream. Hopefully this is a good start, but feel free to address any problems you have with it. I'm pretty sure my citation style is all wrong, too. NickelShoe 17:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I like this new development, NickelShoe. I think it most clealy explains CHS's position without coming off as biased. Raccoon64.12.116.198 04:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Political Positions: Another Perspective

Well, Hello All...

I myself have recently edited this page in order to promote greater neutrality on its part. It seems like several of us are on the job, so I'll share my thinking on this subject and part of why I changed what I did.

To start off, I'm a political independent that agrees with some liberal and some conservative ideas. One of the things this has made me more aware of over the years is how terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are not monolithic, at least not for everyone. What I mean is, someone can be in line with conservatives on a particular position and NOT actually be a conservative; furthermore, one can be a certain type of conservative (like an economic conservative, or a foreign-policy conservative) yet not be on the same page with "mainstream" conservatives (perhaps for their social agenda, or whatever).

My point? Let's watch how we talk about people's political positions. It can be trickier than many think. When CHS or anyone else says "I'm a liberal," it's not necessarily that they are lying as part of some big right-wing conspiracy. One can be mainstream liberal and not support "gender feminism" and side with some conservatives that are more vocal in their opposition (due to Democrats' expected silence about one of their voting blocs). Also, last I checked, the organization that CHS is a member of focuses on economic and foreign policy issues, not social ones. It does not necessarily follow, as some above have suggested, that she supports traditional sex roles. Lastly, I think it's important, when identifying an organization pointing out a particular person's bias, to identify the potential bias of the organization itself. Future

references to MediaTransparency should identify it as an organization that tracks CONSERVATIVE funding.

One of the points made in "Who Stole Feminism?" is that "gender feminists" are silencing criticism by accusing their detractors of being sexist/unenlightened/anti-feminist. Whatever they (or anyone else) might say in the realm of propoganda is one thing, but I personally think we need to get away from "all heat, no light" ways of talking about things here at Misplaced Pages. Rather than accuse CHS of being (OOH, I'm Scared!!!) a conservative, or going out of our way to paint her as one by playing up her connections to conservatives, we should instead point out all sides of the evidence, including what SHE says about HERSELF and what she says about women, which is NOT that they should go back to the kitchen, or that rape isn't a real problem, or anything else one might expect from a true "anti-feminist."

--Raccoon 64.12.116.198 09:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That's why I object to the first sentence defining CHS as conservative. It over-simplifies the issue, making her sound more like an ideologue than a thinking writer. (She may well be an ideologue, but there are better ways to illustrate it.) So showing why it's (believed to be) the case is, as usual, better than simply saying it is. NickelShoe

MediaTransparency

I like Raccoon's latest characterization of MediaTransparency better than the last editor's. I'm still not convinced it's a great idea, but much better than simply calling them liberal. The thing about it is, people can simply follow the internal link if they want to know about it. I just don't see how important it is that they focus on conservatives, if their claims are black and white verifiable. NickelShoe 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Raccoon's thoughts--

Personally, I'd like to know what other sources of funding she received. In academia, an awful lot of people get funding through a range of sources, sometimes with little or no strings attached. A lot of studies have been funded by liberal and conservative groups, or received the majority of their funding through nonpartisan sources and a few political ones, or received funding from very generous donors without a lot of mandates over what the study had to focus on. I think it's misleading to show only part of the picture, just the conservative sources, and then play it off as a "follow the money game" of conservative influence. It may be that, but not always--judging from MediaTransparency's info, it looks like she got all the funding from the one organization through Clark University, which means it MAY have been a grant given to the University for any of a number of purposes, political or otherwise. What I would really like would be to see a list of everything.

--Raccoon 205.188.116.138 05:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor claimed MediaTransparency should be identified as "liberal" since the funding organizations were identified as "conservative." I disagree. Here's why. I think we should avoid labels as much as possible in these circumstances. Not labelling MT as liberal doesn't seem to be hiding facts, to me. The article says they track conservative funding. Conservative is a necessary label, because MT apparently focuses on groups they consider conservative. That does make a difference. Labels like that make more of an emotional impression on people than a fact-oriented one.

If someone disagrees, let's talk about it here. NickelShoe 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing

Hey, I was involved a little earlier in doing some NPOV, and you guys have done a great job. Congrats. I think the article is very well balanced and neutral at this point (but of course could always be expanded.) Sdedeo 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Antifeminist

Much thanks to Barb for finding references to disagreement over CHS's status as a feminist. It's important information that the article needed but also very much needed sourced before it could be in there. I haven't checked out the references yet, but I'm very glad for this addition to the article. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the page number, I should have done this! --BarbD 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove the POV tag?

It seems most parties agree, so, isn't it time to remove the POV tag? If someone doens't agree, could they please say comment.KarlXII 13:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, since I've had no comments I will remove the POV tag.KarlXII 12:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Christina really Jewish?

Christina seems to be an odd first name for a Jewish woman. Can someone provide a citation for that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.64.93 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Christina's husband Fred Sommers is Jewish but she did not convert at the time of her marriage. Perhaps she converted since then, but otherwise no. Cambridgeways 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New section and POV tag

I added a new section after reading Who Stole Feminism to reflect who Hoff Sommers really is. To go on about her politics ad nauseum and ignore most mentions of her contributions is a cute totalitarian tactic to slander and silence her. As we all know, she is a whistleblower who pointed out some unpopular truths about status quo feminist fraud, falsehood and thought-policing. I added the POV tag here to show the censorship, the slander and the distracting political babble that conceals her controversial content. Her politics might indeed be interesting to those who care about internal feminist pissing contests but that leaves out a majority of readers both female and male who could care less about feminist politics but do indeed care about the ISSUE-associated controversies she has created. This article needs NPOV balance that speaks to all readers rather than merely to a few feminists. I added a badly needed pov tag to reflect the shameless totalitarian tactics being indulged in here. I will be glad to pull it as soon as I see some reflection of Hoff Sommers many contributions to the dialogue about fact and fraud in our society. 128.111.95.47 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not anti-CHS, but I'm not sure what you're actually objecting to in the article. Perhaps you could help balance the article? NickelShoe (Talk) 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My fault for being obtuse. Here is my concern in a nutshell. Mainstream 'gender' feminists have been shown by many independent, (both feminist, nonfeminist) authors to be 'ideological', 'fascist', 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', and of course fraudulent. Feminist partisans will do anything to censor, slander and silence someone like CHS because she bluntly, logically and factually busts many mainstream feminist flim-flams. When I see an article packed with political positions but one that makes no mention of CHS' highly controversial professional positions I have cause to suspect that the totalitarian partisans are in charge here. Totalitarians care more about keeping INSIDERS in the dark than they do about outsiders so they will do anything to conceal (with political smoke screens) critical content that pops their bombast-balloon. CHS is a 'popper' they hate, shun, and fear. We need to see why in this article. Hope that helps. I did balance a little bit of the article but I need help because these meanspirited monsters will attack viciously the moment I pull in the really 'problematic' stuff. 12.107.17.150 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone who's been working on this article has been doing so in good faith. But I've got it watchlisted if you're afraid your changes will be reverted arbitrarily. I'm glad you're interested in working on this article. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. So far so good. However watch for the cunning, covert and ugly forms of bad faith like double-speak definitions ('anti-feminist' indeed!), pejorative labeling (what do Hoff Sommers (alleged) politics have to do with her profession) and subtle forms of one-sided slander. The bad faith I watch for here is bad faith toward the person, we are writing the bio on. She deserves at least some respect as a professional. I have no problem taking issue with her positions but to slander her as a person is how politicians dish dirt. That has no place here. 71.102.254.114 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now the political controversies section seems to be very much slanted in CHS' favor, especially the last paragraph. This should be fixed. JuJube 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note notable (and ugly) controversies about CHS and CHS's work here?

CHS challenges the very credibility of mainstream feminist scholarship. This has been most unpopular among those same feminist scholars as one can see from a glance at the following links. The fights are notable both for their meanness and their significance. Seems to me that the essence and character of these cat-fights belong here on this page at least as a summary. What do other editors have to say about this?

Please note that the only systematic study of feminist forms of scholarship I found is contained in Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies which is a comprehensive and critical take on the 600 Women's Studies programs in U.S. universities. Patia and Koerge offer chilling support to what Camille Paglia, CHS, Phyllis Chessler and other feminists have said about 'Feminist Scholarship' in America. Patia and Koerge say the problem is worsening rather than improving about a decade after they wrote the first edition subtitled Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies. My local Univ's Women's Studies department head hadn't even read these books much less made them required reading for her Women's Studies students...a fairly shocking lack of critical comparison from a 'head' scholar in a highly respected university today. One has to wonder who is nuts here: CHS, her critics or all of the above? In any case, given the significance of the issue of the alleged abuse of academic priviledge nationwide for gender-feminist political pandering, I for one consider the CHS' allegations noteable for more than mere allegations of lieing, falsehood, fraud or fearmongering. However, I know from reading the content in this article that many other editors hate CHS enough to label her, slander her and duck most mention of the real issues she raises. Could we replace pejorative personal labeling, political slander, and non-notable innuendo with a NPOV discussion of the CRITICAL controversies here? 128.111.95.245 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to sweep anything under the rug here, it's just that people see the world through their own biases. Some of the information you're talking about would probably make a good addition to the article, however I'd be careful, because you seem to be wanting to vindicate CHS as much as improve the article. The London interview looks good, but I'm not sure I'd cite Friesian.com--I don't consider that a reliable source.

Obviously feel free to improve the article. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

gender feminism section

I've been bold and merged Gender feminism to here. That article is unsourced and since the term is a neologism it probably shouldn't have its own article. The info is probably best here. I've turned Gender feminism into a redirect to Christina Hoff Sommers--Cailil 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

70.112.206.246

The current summary had a lot of "she says" statements and a vague description of Hoff Sommers thesis. This gave the impression that it wasn't a summary, but rather a critique by a hostile skeptic. I'm not against critiques, but it is premature to lead with a critique of a thesis that has not yet been stated. So here is the thesis put succintly and tied into other works. I kept the main points raised on the original summary, pointed out the political philosphy tie in with Freire, and added relationships to a number of other works. 70.112.206.246 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 70.112.206.246, most of your additions are great. I have just 2 issues:

1. The way the sentences about Freire is linked to Hoff Sommers is essay style and violates WP:SYN - it just needs a bit of rewriting to fix that.
2. The reason there were a lot of "she says" and "what she calls" is WP:NPOV - neutral point of view. Using "she says" is not a criticism of Hoff Sommers' views it is a neutral wording of them.--Cailil 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

criticizing a person's research based on the funding source is a fallacy

Criticizing a person's research based on his or her funding source is a fallacy. Even when the organization has been truly discredited and ostracized it is a questionable method of critique. E.g. we would all be at a loss to dismiss Heisenberg's physics, or Konrad Lorenz's psychology. However, the libertarians are not yet in this extreme category anyway.

It sure would make reviewing papers go faster, though ;-)

The idea of stigmatizing a person research based on libertarian funding source is simply dirty politics, nothing more. It is no different than saying a work is “communist”, or “Jewish”. Works should stand on their content and the merits of that content. This section should be rewritten. (it does not parallel entries for other feminists either, I would challenge someone to name one that is not "controversial", indeed that must be a compliment in these circles. 70.112.206.246 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

While I see what you mean 70.112.206.246 and I understand your point. The criticism isn't by the author of the article. The article is citing critics of CHS who label her as "antifeminist" or "conservative" - this is WP:NPOV. That said there are a number of problems with passage - first it's unsourced and second its using weasel words. That part does need rewriting but please check out WP:NPOV first--Cailil 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

70.112.206.246 I've had to roll-back your second addition tonight because it is what wikipedia describes as original research and synthesis. Please be aware that all additions to WP require a reliable source. It is also important to note that this article is covered by the biographies of living persons policy - which is very strict. All material must be neutrally recorded and verifiable using independent reliable sources--Cailil 22:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

references don't click to the right place

When I click on the superscripted references the page jumps to the wrong place. There is no way for a reader to correlate the citing to the reference entry as the numbers in the text don't correspond to the reference number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

response to sommers section

The section was edited substantially without explanation. The current response section outlines UAW responses to points the article didn't bring up in the first place. This makes the response look rather mysterious. Seems it was edited to sound more like a general response, but when I went to their website, they only listed points specific to them. There have been no responses to many allegations made against others.

The first paragraph of the summary points out the March of Dimes report that has been widely cited, but does not exist, it seems appropriate for purposes of parallel construction that it is mentioned that no defense has been suggested for this (and many other allegations made)

In general I don't find the character flaw or attitude criticisms Hoff levels as being very interesting. I find the very specific allegations highly interesting. There is very little response to these. The UAW page mentions not having someone at a meeting Hoff claims someone was at, and claims they did provide data. These are not so interesting, because short of an investigation they are unverifiable - unless Sommers were to reply with further evidence. A citation to a report that doesn't exist, on the other hand, is easily verified. There have been no responses to this allegation.

To say that the UAW made a blanket response, as the section has now been changed, to leads to the impression that everything is *ok*, but something is really really wrong with either the allegations or the responses. In any other field of research, if someone made such widely published allegation of citing reports that didn't exist, then something would happen. This begs questions. Are feminist debates/research not to be taken seriously? Is this just play? If it is serious, then where is the resolution? If it isn't serious, then how embarrasing for the notable Universities that have been passing out degrees to these folks. This aspect of Hoff's work is very important to people trying to make sense out of using the reports, or out her thesis of a transition to a supremancy movement.

.. personally, I'm in a quandry trying to make sense of it all because of the "she said" "she said" aspects of the debate. I think it would be best to stick to statements made by the parties that are verifiable, or perhaps could be verified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 08:19, 3 September 2007

The problem with adding text like "In any other field of research, if someone made such widely published allegation of citing reports that didn't exist, then something would happen." is that it is not sourced, its not neutral and it's not verified.

Please also be aware that wikipedia is not a forum and not a soapbox - the 4th paragraph in your above comment violates rules. Please see WP:TALK for an explanation of how to use a talkpage.

Dimitrisdad, I'm having problems identifying exactly what your issue is, so if I've got the wrong end of the stick I apologize in advance. If you are asking why the text linking Hoff Sommers to conservative funding was removed it's because that was original research. If you can provide a peer reviewed published article/book/journal piece that states this then it can go back in. Otherwise that stays out. If you arguing that the section about the AUAW needs expansion so that it is made clear then I agree with you - however I'm unsure of exactly how notable either the criticism or the response is.

Also, please sign your comments using ~~~~

--Cailil 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Birth date

The article says she was born in 1956. It also says she graduated university in 1971. If both of these are true, it's extraordinary. Are we sure it's right? Metamagician3000 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Health and Human Services

Found an incident that should be included. http://www.angryharry.com/esFeministsarenastythings.htm http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz120501.shtml

Also why is there no mention of her appearence on the Bill Maher show in 2004, with Michael Moore, and Sandra Burnhard?

216.201.48.26 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Conservative libertarian?

Article reads, 'Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950 in Akron, Ohio) is a self-described conservative libertarian author who researches culture, adolescents, and morality in American society.' When did Sommers describe herself as a 'conservative libertarian', and what's the source for that? I don't think that should be in the article without a source. Skoojal (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

She is on the board of the American Enterprise Institute and the Independent Women's Forum, both of which are think tanks for conservative writers and academics.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also: http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/christina-hoff-sommers.html

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Advocates is a great group, but that doesn't mean it's a good source for WP:BLP to protect wikipedia from lawsuits. Same with all the other libertarian groups and individuals (including Wendy McElroy) who jump up and yell libertarian if the person happens to be conservative and not be a total fascist :-) I'm looking around for better evidence myself. Carol Moore 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please see new ref, section 1.2.3 --IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alice rightgrrl.com is not a reliable source. The no. 2 ref to the article formerly published in SpinTech magazine does not show where Hoff Sommers is "a self-described conservative libertarian". The 3rd ref's link is broken. It needs to be demonstrated where this claim can be verified using a reliable source - if it can't be demonstrated then User:Carolmooredc is correct & I'm afraid the text must be removed as per WP:BLP--Cailil 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Messed up references

This article combines two types of reference formats. Most of the references are the type most people do NOT use and I don't know what called. A few are the more typical ref format so I added reflist under references. Anybody want to go through and make them all in that format, since people adding stuff probably will use the more popular format? Carol Moore 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk} .

After people undid my fixing of the references, this articles reference section has gotten even messier. I think the two editors working on this most should fix that if they are insistent on reverting others' efforts to fix it. It just keeps getting worse.Carol Moore 12:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

merger?

What would people think about merging Equity feminism and gender feminism to this article?--Cailil 11:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea because a lot of other people have adopted the phrases. Equity feminism and gender feminism Article needs to quote more of them. Carol Moore 13:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It would be helpful if we could do that - becuase as it stands the reliance on Hoff Sommers is imbalanced. A question though, I don't know of anyone using the terms differently to Hoff Sommers - have others adjusted the terms' meanings?--Cailil 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Hoff Sommers Ok, Just needs to be WP:NOR and WP:RS

Template:RFCbio

You can't delete harsh criticism of Hoff Sommers from reliable sources and 3 or 4 examples specifically about her views from reliable sources per WP:BLP is fine. I would have to look at the ones deleted to see if they meet that standard, since I have seen some that was obviously WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Also should be proportionate, ie not more criticism of views than there is description of them. But many individuals have criticism or controversies section, which ever is most relevant. Carol Moore 13:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The article quoted only negative reviews of Sommers's work. It was a BLP violation. Skoojal (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation that means you can remove everything. It is one where, if you don't want to do the work of finding positive comments, you could put a section tag in about POV. I'm not going to do work of replacing it at this point only because there is someone else who doubtless will be willing to do so. If you want it more balanced, put up positive comments. Carol Moore 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

As I understand it, it is a BLP violation if you only cite negative comments. The policy is fairly strict on this. Note that it reads, 'Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.' The criticism of Sommers added by IronAngelAlice was clearly overwhelming the article and taking sides, and hence is a BLP violation. I'm not going to stand for this article being used to trash Sommers. Skoojal (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that IronAngelAlice also restored the "conservative libertarian" bit, which has no proper source. That clearly is not acceptable either. Skoojal (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. Critical reviews of a living person is not a BLP violation, especially when they are coming from the Times, the Washington Post, etc. According to BLP:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The section that Skoojal keeps deleting meets all these criteria:

• The criticism is directly relevant to the subject's notability and is sourced by reliable sources.
• The criticism does not overwhelm the article, nor is it an NPOV violaction - Hoff Sommers is a professional polemic writer. People are going to be critical as well as complimentary. It is certainly possible for us to write in praise as well as criticisms. But simply because we don't have anything labeled "praise" in the article, doesn't mean the criticisms should be ignored. We've listed her positions as if they were fact - a sort of subversive praise.
• Again, this is genuine criticism from the Post the Times, etc. It is not "malicious."

Moreover, the article without the criticisms does not give the reader much context. Sommers is a controversial person. So, please stop using BLP as an excuse to delete criticisms of Sommers.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You described Sommers in the article as a self-described socially conservative libertarian. You do not have proper sources for this, and an administrator told you that it has to be removed. Stop inserting that description of Sommers right now, or I'm going to remove any further additions you make, without discussion. Skoojal (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?!? The reference to the self-described socially conservative libertarian is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stop being a bully. Furthermore, what administrator told me it had to be removed? This is becoming increasingly comical. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the criticism of Sommers you added: as you added only negative criticism that is, obviously, taking sides, and that's sufficient reason to remove it. Regarding Sommers's dispute with Nina Auerbach, you added only a one-sided account of that affair. This should not be mentioned in the article at all unless it can be handled properly. Skoojal (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not add any information regarding Sommer's dispute with Nina Auerbauch. I adding a rebuttal by the AAUW and a critique by the Washington Post. This is almost becoming surreal in it's silliness.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree she shouldn't be described as a libertarian without a specific reliable reference (conservative more supportable because she works for well known conservative organization). But "libertarian" should be summarily deleted. However, this constant full deletion of the critical material is absurd. I'm going to revert it myself, perhaps with a couple changes, just to show support for not reverting. Otherwise, what form of dispute resolution do you guys intend to do? Start with third opinion? Go straight to mediation? Carol Moore 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Again, see has anyone read the Stanfrod Encyclopeida of Philosophy reference?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice inserted a specific description of Sommers ("self-described socially conservative libertarian"), that isn't supported by a single source. There was one source asserting that Sommers called herself a libertarian, so that part might be more supportable than the rest of it - but it still isn't a very good source, and I have doubts about whether it should be used. It might be OK to say that Sommers is socially conservative, but it is definitely not OK to say that she is a self-described socially conservative anything unless there's a source showing that she has in fact described herself that way. This needs to be settled before anything else can be discussed. Skoojal (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time trying to clean up a messily referenced article. Missing info is probably in external links. Some critical refs are dubious but explain that when deleting; or debate at reliable resources noticeboard. I'm going to unwatch this now since I don't really care too much about this woman one way or another, except that she not be called a libertarian without a very specific reference directly to her from a reliable source, preferably with her saying so. Carol Moore 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Again, see has anyone read the Stanfrod Encyclopeida of Philosophy reference? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/

In the section under "Libertarian Feminism," it says the following:

1.2.3 Socially Conservative Equity Feminism

Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000a). To be sure, equity feminism as described here is a form of classical liberal or libertarian feminism. As such it involves the claim that traditional values should not be imposed on citizens by the state. For example, the state should not tax citizens to support institutions that promote traditional values, nor should the criminal or civil law create incentives for adherence to such values. But some equity feminists hold that it is best when citizens voluntarily adhere to traditional values. They hold that widespread voluntary adherence to traditional values is conducive to well-being in society because traditional values make possible the reproduction of independent and “self-restraining citizens” which are “the basis of free institutions, both economic and political” (Morse 2001, 161).

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be considered undue to even mention what the Stanfrod Encyclopeida of Philosophy says. What's the point of including that at all? And note that simply because the source says this, it doesn't mean it's a correct description of Sommers's views. Why don't you try actually using Sommers's published books and articles to describe her views, if you want to do it fairly? And you didn't use the source properly: it says it uses the terms classically liberal and libertarian interchangeably; it doesn't specifically say that Sommers is a libertarian (nor are the actual words "socially conservative libertarian" anywhere in that source). Skoojal (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's obviously unbalanced to mention what the AAUW said about Hoff Sommers without bothering to include what she said about them in response, or to mention only one negative book review for The War Against Boys. Articles about living people have to be not only balanced; they need to be seen to be balanced. Don't just stuff in the negative stuff. Skoojal (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you are way out of line. If we can't use a scholarly text to define an individual's philosophy, what's the point of using any references at all? We do use Sommers' text to define what she believes - but obviously she is not a disengaged, objective observer. That's why we use the SE of P. Furthermore, criticism is not a violation of BLP. If you want to include more praise of Sommers or self-praise by Sommers, please do. It is not customary on Misplaced Pages to include a person's response to criticisms of him or herself. Please stop bullying Skoojal. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually Alice Skoojal has a point - see WP:COATRACK. While criticism is not a WP:BLP violation, the use of a biography article as a coatrack to hang criticism upon is. Which sources and how much weight they are given is more strictly defined in a BLP article. While I agree with many of the sources you are arguing should stay I have to tell you that this page was being used as a coatrack. Now regarding Standford could you show the link where it says "Christina Hoff Sommers is ..." becuase right now what you are arguing for, regarding the definition of Sommers' views, is original research--Cailil 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly text you refer to does not use the words, "socially conservative libertarian." Even if the source should be used at all (which I have doubts about), you would have to stick strictly to what it actually says, and that doesn't include using a phrase which it does not contain. Maybe some of the other criticism you've added should be in the article, but can we please get this point settled before discussing that? Skoojal (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching her name again, I can see that the Stanford article both alleges Hoff Sommers calls herself either a classical liberal or a libertarian (Sommers 1994, 22) AND that she is "socially conservative" (Sommers 2000a)!! So all one can do is say THIS SOURCE says she is either this, this or that, which just makes one suspect the source. This may be one of those times one must go to the primary source (her book footnoted in article) for a clarification. Carol Moore 03:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

re: RFC-BIO just put up: While I may have been a bit prejudiced on having Sommers being identified as a libertarian (a problem semi-resolved above), I now see the greater problems here are:

• reverting of any sourced criticism, some of which is WP:RS; others of which could go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard since borderline. I took out the stuff clearly not WP:RS. Because someone reverted my changes to properly reference this, even the dubious ones are still listed as references, the references to nowhere!
• removing BLP tag and requests for refs on alleged facts about Hoff Sommers. I don't know if these things are true and don't feel like researching right now. Still two weeks behind on other projects. One leaves those up to encourage people to source that info.

Obviously this women evinces strong emotions but that is no reason to throw wiki policies out the window and editors who continue to abuse policies can be banned from editing the article for a while so calmer heads can clean it up. Carol Moore 03:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

My following response to Cailil was removed by Skoojal yesterday - probably by accident as the result of an edit conflict:

Cailil. Hoff Sommers is listed under "Socially Conservative Equity Feminism" in the article "Libertarian Feminism." You have simply made-up the formula that a source must say "Christina Hoff Sommers is..." It's not a Wiki rule, it's not how Misplaced Pages works and it is not Original Research. Why do you insist on throwing pseudo wikipedia rules at me when I know perfectly well what a Misplaced Pages article is? Do you think I'm daft?

Hoff Sommers is a professional polemic writer. It would be silly of us not to add context which is provided in my case by reliable sources. This is not coatracking, it's good authorship. As I've said before, a lack of praise does not mean that the criticisms are inappropriate. I have no problem with adding more third-party analysis or Sommers' own explanations, etc. See David Reardon as an example of criticisms of living people.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed your comments because you, in an apparent act of vandalism, added them in a way that removed my comments. In the past, when this sort of thing has happened, I have readded other people's comments on talk pages in a way that prevents them from replacing other people's comments, but in this case I could not be bothered. It's up to you to add your comments properly. Now, as your reply to Cailil, I don't accept what you say. If you want to say that a source characterises someone as a "socially conservative libertarian", it is necessary that the source actually use those words, otherwise you are distorting it. End of story. Skoojal (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, let's not get melodramatic and overly personal. I did not purposefully remove your comments, I did not mean to remove your comments, and to me this is clearly an edit conflict problem associated with Wiki servers being overloaded.

Let's also be clear that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists Hoff Sommers in it's article on "Libertarian Feminism" as a "Socially Conservative Equity Feminism." In the section, the Encyclopedia references Sommers as a Socially Conservative Equity Feminist:

1.2.3 Socially Conservative Equity Feminism

Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000a). To be sure, equity feminism as described here is a form of classical liberal or libertarian feminism. As such it involves the claim that traditional values should not be imposed on citizens by the state. For example, the state should not tax citizens to support institutions that promote traditional values, nor should the criminal or civil law create incentives for adherence to such values. But some equity feminists hold that it is best when citizens voluntarily adhere to traditional values. They hold that widespread voluntary adherence to traditional values is conducive to well-being in society because traditional values make possible the reproduction of independent and “self-restraining citizens” which are “the basis of free institutions, both economic and political” (Morse 2001, 161).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/#EquFem

Font bold is my addition.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that, following my repeated insistence that you stop distorting the source, you have stopped distorting the source. However, you haven't explained why it is of any consequence how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes Sommers, or why this needs to be in the article at all. In my view, it would be better material for the article on Feminism. Skoojal (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never distorted the source. I had even copied that paragraph earlier in our discussion. I think it is very relevant and significant that a scholarly publication has included Sommers under the label "socially conservative." --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You distorted the source by placing your own personal interpretation on it. It wasn't as bad as some of the other distortions of sources and original research that you have done, but it still was not acceptable. I see it as being of no consequence what that particular source says about Sommers anyway; it hardly seems suitable for a biography about a specific person, as opposed to an article about philosophy or feminism generally. Skoojal (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of putting personal interpretation on the source. I know the grammar is subtle, but the reference (Sommers 2000a) clearly modifies the clause "Some equity feminists are socially conservative." Perhaps you've not done much reading of scholarly sources, but references like this are not unusual especially for short articles like this one. It is clear that the SEP is categorizing Sommers as a "socially conservative equity feminist." It is natural, therefore, for me continue to disagree with you.

It is also clear that the SEP is far above the minimum requirements using the wiki definition of a "reliable source." I don't believe we need to continue to argue this point. I

In addition, I'm not sure why you are pursing this argument. After all, in the same paragraph we use the SEP reference, we acknowledge that Sommer's is one of the founders of the conservative Independent Women's Forum. We also acknowledge that she is a scholar at socially conservative institutes that include the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. What makes her interesting is that in the past she has also called herself a feminist (though I do not know if she uses that label anymore - and has intimated in an interview that she does not, calling feminists "them"), and that she is also a libertarian.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote that you distorted the source, I was referring to the "socially conservative libertarian" description of Sommers. The source does not contain those words. That was your interpretation/distortion of the source. I explained why I consider that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article should not be used here as a source: it is an article about feminism as a movement, not about Sommers as an individual. Hence, using it here is undue. And I have never seen real, convincing evidence that Sommers has ever called herself a libertarian. Skoojal (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the source was not distorted when I wrote that she is a "socially conservative libertarian." The SEP article that acknowledges Sommers is about Libertarian feminisms and feminists. It is a little silly to say that the SEP article is only about feminism and not about individual feminists - and therefore we can't quote the SEP. It's a painful stretch to claim that we cannot reference the category of feminism a feminist has been assigned or self-assigned because the article is about "feminism" and not about "feminists" (which is not entirely the case to begin with). Please stop making your own Wiki rules. The SEP has called Hoff Sommers a libertarian. Therefore, we can say that Hoff Sommers is considered a libertarian by the SEP.

But it is also not hard to find real, convincing properly sourced materials that claim Hoff Sommers describes herself as a libertarian:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=uDSa9jaDauwC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=hoff+sommers+libertarian&source=web&ots=jvmbUQw94B&sig=9d0UzvNmSgQRQ4TlwTeyQnWGjkg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result (see footnote #7)
• http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you distorted the source. I'm sorry you have a problem understanding that. The source used the words libertarian and classical liberal interchangably, a significant nuance which your description of Sommers as a "libertarian" does not capture. Nor (as I'm tired of pointing out) does it use the words "socially conservative libertarian." That's your intepretation of the source and nothing else. As for the suitability of using that source, I never said that there was a rule that it can't be used because it's not about Sommers as an individual; I was simply trying to appeal to your better judgment, and that of other editors. The other sources you provide are, significantly, not written by Sommers herself. They're things written about Sommers by other people, and that makes them dubious (theadvocates.org, for instance, might have every reason to call Sommers a "libertarian", even if she never identified her views that way, because it could be convenient to them). They vaguely say that, '...Sommers, who has been quoted as describing herself as "a libertarian and feminist..."', but don't tell us who said that or where. I do not accept your changes, and will, in due course, revert them. Skoojal (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised to see primary sources commended as the best sources to evaluate an individual's work or stance. Secondary sources are in fact preferred, but in the absence of reliable books about Sommers, the Stanford Encyclopaedia is clearly an acceptable fallback (although in fact the Marshall book linked to just above seems to be a good secondary source for the claim. See The issue is correctly representing what the Encyclopaedia says, not whether it's an appropriate source.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

First there's been a lot of reverting of properly sourced material going on which has been frustration. And right now I myself just put in a primary source just to keep people from reverting back to two messy references. It's just a matter of finding a good review that outlines her views, as is done in a later section. I'll fix page accordingly and then taking a break. Carol Moore 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Made a slight change to enhance the accuracy of the Barbara Marshall point, which is not that Sommers can be identified as a libertarian, but that she explicitly identifies herself as a libertarian. It's inelegant, but the simple solution is to take "Barbara Marshall" out of the text, simply say that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a libertarian, and cite Marshall. Why not?KD Tries Again (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD Tries Again: your comments unfortunately make no attempt to respond to my point. I wasn't arguing about whether the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy counts as a reliable source per the Misplaced Pages definition of that term, but whether IronAngelAlice was using it correctly, and whether there was indeed any reason to use it at all. Regarding the libertarian part, it's imperative to find Sommers herself saying that she is a libertarian, otherwise all that can be said in the article is that one or two sources have asserted that she describes herself that way, which in my view is undue. Removing "Barbara Marshall" from the text, as you suggest, would make the article much worse. The term "libertarian" is often bandied about in a loose and all but meaningless way, and that's one of the reasons I have a problem with this. Skoojal (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a libertarian feminist who dislikes the unnecessarily hostile attacks on feminists by people alleging selves to be libertarians, I am even more sensitive to this issue. (I did an Amazon.com search of both her books and she does NOT call herself one in either.)

I don't have a problem with saying that WP:RS identify her as a libertarian, even if they are wrong. I do have a problem with saying that so and so says she calls herself a libertarian without that person providing a reference to that fact.

Also again please note there are some critical refs of Hoff Sommers - probably dicussed above -- that are borderline WP:RS and a fourth opinion on those appreciated. (Or someone could bring them to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for further discussion; I can't decide myself so leaving them up.)

Plus if third parties want to opine on if there is too much on the controversies. Of course controversies are part of what make people notable enough for wikipedia. :-) Carol Moore 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Arbitrary break

• I know nothing at all about this person.
• I don't care about any of the issues.
• I am therefore as neutral a person you're likely to find on this topic.

User:IronAngelAlice abuses the source. The encyclopedia does not "list Hoff Sommers as" anything. It does not "reference Sommers" as anything. The encyclopedia cites a specific publication that was written by Sommers as its authority for its assertion that "some equity feminists are socially conservative". Whether or not Sommers is part of the group of "some equity feminists" or the group "socially conservative" is beyond the scope of the source. The source only says that she wrote about the existence of an intersection between the two groups. The disputed text must be either properly attributed to a reliable source that actually identifies Sommers as a member of these groups, or promptly removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that seems pretty definitive and I'm in the middle so I'm willing to take that out and take out Advocates for Self-Government which I only allowed back in because there seemed to be two other WP:RS sources. Now the question is, what about using author Barbara Marshall who states that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a "libertarian" without offering evidence. REF:"Configuring Gender". Can we use that allegation? Or can we say that Marshall identifies Hoff as a libertarian. Note that I could not find her calling herself one in either of her books or on the web. Carol Moore 12:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I understand she's a moderately prolific writer? If that's so, and you can't find an actual self-identification, then I wonder whether Barbara Marshall has her facts straight. It would clearly be safer to say that Marshall says that Sommers self-identifies as libertarian ("safer," as in undisputable). Normally, we'd support a self-identification with a ref to the actual subject actually identifying as something. Given how much effort's gone into this issue on the talk page, perhaps a section about how it's difficult to pigeon-hole her beliefs is in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what WhatamIdoing, I agree with you and I second your suggestion about a "pigeon-holing" section--Cailil 17:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian?

The article currently reads, 'The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes Sommers as a socially conservative equity feminist, as well as a classical liberal or libertarian. Advocates for Self-Government identify her as a "libertarian" while author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a "libertarian.'

The first part of that is an improvement over how IronAngelAlice has used that source in the past, and possibly acceptable. The second part is undue and unacceptable, and I will delete it. It's neither responsible nor sensible to include descriptions of Sommers as a "libertarian" if there is no evidence she has described herself that way. See WP:UNDUE, which reads 'An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.' There's no indication that the view of Sommers as a "libertarian" is anything other than a minority view. She has probably much more often been described as a conservative.Skoojal (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point seems so obviously misguided, that I fear I may somehow have misunderstood it. Where is the Wiki policy which says that attributing a viewpoint to an individual requires a primary source, i.e. the individual him/herself stating that they adopt that viewpoint? The whole of Wiki is built on citations to reliable secondary and tertiary sources which attribute viewpoints to individuals. For example, the statement that Bill Gates is a philanthropist is not sourced to a statement by Bill Gates that "I am a philanthropist". The Marshall cite just IS the evidence. If you have a source which says Sommers is not a libertarian, you should add it. I would add that in my experience, Wiki resolves these disputes by editors reaching consensus, not by an individual editor taking ownership of the article and deciding what to delete.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I am not sure that there is a Wiki policy covering this, but common sense, and decency, suggest that sources indicating that a person describes him or herself with a particular label should be found before that label is attached to him or her. Furthermore, you have not replied to my point that it's undue to mention what one libertarian website (which may not qualify as a reliable source) and one book by Barbara Marshall say. Skoojal (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Marshall cite states clearly that Sommers explicitly self-identifies as "libertarian". It's consistent with the comments in the Stanford Encyclopaedia. The question of whether it is given undue weight doesn't really arise unless you have conflicting sources on the issue. Undue comes into play when a minority view is given undue weight. But you haven't cited anything to the contrary.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You didn't respond to my point about whether the Advocates website is a reliable source. That's an important point that requires a response. And regarding undue weight, it could well be considered undue to mention what one particular author says in one particular book. Why is this so important that it must be in the article? Plenty of descriptions of Sommers could be added from any number of books, but why add them at all? It's up to the person adding this stuff to show that it needs to be here. It's pointless to have both that and the description from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Skoojal (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the Advocates website. The aim of the exercise is to add information to the article, which the Marshall cite does. Maybe take a look at . If you had anything saying that Sommers doesn't consider herself a libertarian, then there'd be something to discuss.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that you don't care whether the Advocates website is a reliable source or not? Obviously it has to be assessed as a reliable source, or it can't be used. Note that it seems to think that libertarianism and conservatism are the same thing; it refers vaguely to 'libertarian/conservative thinkers.' That's a good enough reason for not using that source to say that Sommers is a libertarian. You may also want to note the following . This says that Sommers makes the case for "conservative feminism", not "libertarian feminism", as one might expect from a supposed libertarian. It, 'argues that moderates, conservatives, and libertarians should rescue the noble cause of feminism from the radical left.' To take this position is a far cry from calling oneself a libertarian; it is effectively a self-identification by Sommers as a conservative. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there's this, . Again, it mentions libertarians, but Sommers doesn't say she is one. Or there's this, , which refers indifferently to 'conservative and libertarian' ideas, as if they were the same thing. It's perfectly obvious that Sommers is avoiding a self-description as a 'libertarian' in the interests of building a big tent against politically correct feminism. Skoojal (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. If you have a source which says she's not a libertarian, let's add it for balance. As you know, your personal conclusions from what you've read aren't appropriate for the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Per copious evidence presented in my most recent post at end of next section, I think it is clear that the more reliable sources call her a conservative, not to mention that her associations are conservative and thus we should call her one. Unless we want to say - oh, and these less reliable sources call her a libertarian. Doesn't make much sense. Carol Moore 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

The other way to handle that information would to say that she has worked for "conservative organizations" and not label her as either a libertarian or a conservative--Cailil 11:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly with regard to libertarianism, we could say she has spoken at or being involved with libertarian organizations/groups--Cailil 11:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

Carolmooredc recently changed the article to read, 'Hoff Sommers criticizes what she considers politically correct trends within feminism, while others consider her to be antifeminist.' This change is a BLP violation, and needs to be reverted promptly. The wording implies that everyone, except for Sommers herself, considers her anti-feminist. This is factually wrong and totally unacceptable. Skoojal (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I made an imprecise attempt to get rid of the redundant use of critic/criticize. I've now replaced criticized with condemned. If you can think of a better word or either, go for it. But let's not confuse minor editing faux pas with serious BLP violations. Right now I'm throwing in some reference for material there. If you are concerned about the article, add more informative material. Carol Moore 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Skoojal, your consistantly rude behaviour and accusations are becoming increasingly annoying. From now on, I will try and I hope you will also try to assume good faith.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your accusations about my allegedly rude behaviour annyoing. Be specific about what you are objecting to, or don't make such comments. The fact is, you've done a bad job of editing this article (including very poor use of sources), and I'm within my rights to object to that. Skoojal (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You have just provided my example. Other examples include accusing me of BPL violations several times (without justification), as well as accusing me of vandalism. I am sorry that you feel this way. It was not my intention to edit this article poorly, and I don't feel that I did. I was simply trying to provide accurate information with the tools at our disposal. These tools include primary and secondary sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that your editing of the talk page should have been described as vandalism, but my accusations of BLP violation against you were correct in my judgment. I regret that you find them rude, but BLP violation does have to be dealt with. If you intend to continue using sources in the way you have in the past, that will pose a problem. Skoojal (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that using reliable secondary and tertiary sources to describe a writer's viewpoint is a BLP issue at all. It's normal Wiki practice. Rather than just scrapping about it, why not take it to the BLP Noticeboard?KD Tries Again (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Have you been following IronAngelAlice's edits very closely? She used a synthesis of sources to try to show that Sommers was a "self described socially conservative libertarian." Not one of those sources even contained the words "socially conservative libertarian", let alone quoted Sommers describing herself that way. It was a totally irresponsible and inappropriate thing to have done, and she stopped only after I repeatedly reverted her and pointed out that you can't use sources that way. Skoojal (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't, and that's not the point of the exercise. We now have a good secondary source which states Sommers self-describes as a "libertarian". Case closed unless you have sources which deny this - only then can we consider what gets due weight in the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It's obviously a problem of undue weight including that source, as there already is a description of Sommers's views, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If that stays in, then the Barbara Marshall bit is simply unnecessary and gratuitous. Aside from being undue, it more or less repeats the same point as the SEP, which is why it does not have to be there. Who the heck needs multiple sources describing Sommers as a "libertarian"? Have you heard of the concept of overkill?Skoojal (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But the reason for including the Marshall citation was that you thought SEP was insufficient to support to the claim that Sommers regards herself as a libertarian. It was introduced in response to your difficulties with SEP. Either you think SEP alone supports the claim - in which case we keep the claim and lose Marshall - or you don't, in which case Marshall is necessary. Getting puzzled here.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The SEP reference is indeed insufficient to support the claim that Sommers regards herself as a libertarian, for the good reason that it does not say that. It can, however, be used to support the claim that Sommers has been described as a libertarian, which is also the only way that Marshall could responsibly be used. It's thus not necessary to use both sources. Skoojal (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Marshall is a cite for an interesting and informative claim about how Sommers self-identifies.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Why use Marshall at all, rather than any other sources? Being "interesting" is not enough. Here and here are sources stating that Sommers is a conservative. Many more could be found. Here is a source where Sommers states that she is not a "rabid market capitalist", which is what "libertarian" is usually taken to mean (as most people, certainly including Sommers, would know). Thus, there is a problem of undue weight in using a source claiming that Sommers is a self-described libertarian. Skoojal (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

These references are helpful in indicating she is considered a conservative. Considering that (too) many libertarians have promoted Hoff sommers' views, it's not surprising Marshall might think she's one. Dang, why can't we just call up Hoff Sommers and ask her? :-) Carol Moore 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Fortunately, unnecessary. As I'm sure you know better than me, Carol, it's a fundamental tenet of Misplaced Pages that we don't have to evaluate whether sources are right, only that they are the type of source Wiki considers reliable. The claim that Sommers is a self-identified libertarian is verifiable - that's what matters. By the way, it's easy to find interviews Sommers has given in which she discusses the problems libertarian women have faced with aspects of feminism. Can we now go ahead and restore the reference to Marshall?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• I found this AEI interview with Hoff Sommers when she only talks about "Conservative, moderate and libertarian American women" but does not identify as one. It seems to have been reprinted several times. If you have one where she clearly says she herself is a libertarian, please provide link/reference. In this interview she says: "There are women conservatives. There are radicals. There are anarchists. There are the traditionalists, and so forth. We are diverse, we are individuals."
• Please re-read Skoojal 23:09, 18 September above again. The Washington Post and National Review are much more weighty and knowledgeable sources than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (written by undergraduates??), the Marshall book (which is written from a feminist perspective and not an inside the beltway journalistic one like Post and NR), and obviously than the Advocates for Self-Government which likes to claim anyone even slightly libertarian. The fact that she works with ], Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and Independent Women's Forum - And per Wash Post spoke for Conservative Political Action Conference indicates she's more conservative than libertarian.
• Let's call her a conservative, using the last two sources, and leave it at that. Her rejection of "rabid market capitalis(m)" makes it possible she'd be offended by being labeled a libertarian on less reliable sources than the ones that call her a conservative.Carol Moore 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

If most sources call Sommers a conservative, then there would be little problem saying that she is usually regarded as a conservative. If there is only one reliable source saying that Sommers identifies as a libertarian, it would be undue to add that. Skoojal (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Per my above suggestion there is a slightly different way to handle this information--Cailil 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles