Talk:Women's Liberation Front

"Self-described radical feminist"

The first sentence of the article calls WoLF "self-described radical feminist." To me, "self-described" sounds like an expression of MOS:DOUBT. It is true that WoLF describes themselves as "radical feminist," but the cited sources don't merely attribute it to WoLF, the cited sources all call WoLF feminist.

From the cited Washington Post article:

"The Women’s Liberation Front is part of a long-running strain of feminism..."

"And Chart and other radical feminists are helping to bolster their message..."

"The fight between radical feminists and transgender rights advocates began decades ago..."

From the NBC article:

"Heron Greenesmith... said this latest iteration of cooperation between conservatives and radical feminists (sometimes referred to as transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs)... "

From the Advocate article:

"The far-right Heritage Foundation is aligning itself with a certain type of feminist -- those who oppose transgender rights, often called trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs."

It is true, based on the statement by NOW (in the wikipedia article), the statement by the ACLU (in the wapo article), and numerous other statements, that the feminist label is contentious. However, based on the sources cited for the claim, and other reliable sources in the article that refer to WoLF as "feminist" without reservation, the phrase "self-described" seems misleading. Of the universe (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose removing "self-described":

"The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American radical feminist organization..."

Another possible resolution could be: "The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American advocacy organization that opposes transgender rights and gender identity legislation." And add a sentence saying "They describe themselves as feminist, and abc sources describe them as feminist, but this description has been challenged by xyz groups." Of the universe (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Of the universe (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI, there's some prior discussion at Talk:Women's Liberation Front/Archive 1#"Radical feminist". I would be fine with your "possible resolution". We could also be more vague than that, provided we add some content to the body about who describes them as feminist and who disagrees. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Thanks! I'll read through the past discussion Of the universe (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It's mercifully short! Main thing is that it's got more sources that lean on "self-described". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not a feminist organization in a mainstream sense, and the idea that they are feminist at all is disputed by many large feminist organizations and others, with the National Organization for Women characterizing them as "anti-trans bigots disguised as feminist". However it is a fact that they describe themselves as radical feminist, so the best solution is simply to mention their self-description, as a self-description. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Links to conservative organisations

@Amanda A. Brant: I checked the wording of the section before I reverted to the previous ‘conservative’ heading. There is nothing in the section wording which supports referring to the organisations mentioned as ‘far right’. The word ‘conservative’ is used to refer to various organisations. Your edit summary says: ADF, The Heritage Foundation, WDI, Family Research Council (an extremist anti-LGBT group designated as a hate group by SPLC) have all been linked to the far right…..

So, according to your edit summary, the organisations themselves are not far right – they have just been linked to the far right. And you are saying that WoLF is linked to organisations which themselves have been linked to the far right. There is no way that these tenuous alleged ‘links’ justify a heading implying that WoLF has links to the far right. You have provided no sources for links to the far-right. And you should have started a discussion on the Talk page, rather than reverting me.

There is a general problem about describing political organisations and positions as right, left, conservative, radical – these categories are not clear, particularly nowadays, when right-wing parties may be radical, and left-wing parties, opposing, may be described as ‘conservative with a small “c” ‘. But calling a party ‘far right’ may be considered defamatory, [1] and should only be used where there is very good sourcing for the term. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

They have been described as far-right by reliable sources and reputable organizations.

• Family Research Council: [2][3][4][5][6][7] Heck, even Catholic media call them far-right[8]. They are designated as a hate group by SPLC.
• Heritage Foundation: [9][10][11][12][13][14]
• ADF: [15][16][17][18][19] and is designated by SPLC as an anti-LGBT hate group.

And so it goes on and on. So yes, they are all far-right, multiple of them are SPLC-designated hate groups. Describing them as "conservative" is like describing the Ku Klux Klan – or any other SPLC-designated hate group – as "conservative". "Linked to" is a bit ambiguous, and can mean that they are far-right or in proximity to the far right; the former was meant here. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see from your post that some reliable sources have referred to these organisations as ‘far-right’. However, our articles on them call them ‘conservative’. In these circumstances, I will accept the amendment to ‘right-wing’. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)