Jump to content

Talk:Feminism/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Comments, part the second

This article has always improved, every time I reread it. Congratulation, all, on so successfully tackling such a difficult topic! Here are my comments:

Sections:

  • The editors might think about adding a "Proto-feminism" or "Pre-feminism" section. I deleted the Mary wollstonecraft reference because it interrupted the flow of the first-wave feminism section and she isn't a first-wave feminist, but it would be nice to have a little paragraph on the writers and people who inspired the feminist movement. There has been a lot of scholarship recently on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century "feminists" - Mary Astell, Mary Wollstonecraft, etc.
  • The "first-wave feminism" section has a lot of names without a lot of context for them. Either prune some of the names or add context for the names.
  • The "Women's Liberation in the USA" section does not explain the goals of the movement.
  • The Feminine Mystique section cites Friedan's obituary as evidence for the influence of the book - this book has been written about so much. I would suggest finding a better source - just for the sake of making wikipedia look a bit better to the outside world. The summary of Friedan's book seems to be sourced to the book itself - it would be nice if that were sourced to a secondary work on the history of feminism - scholars have interpreted Friedan's work differently and everyone summarizes differently (it's really amazing). Same goes for de Beauvoir's Second Sex.
  • Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas paragraph needs a transition from the previous paragraph. It is difficult for the reader to know what to make of the quote in this paragraph because post-feminism hasn't been introduced yet. Perhaps some reordering?
  • The Gilligan paragraph is good, but its topic sentence promises a different debate than the one we get - it promises a debate between feminists. It might be a good idea to add some material on how feminists react to Gilligan's work.
  • The post-feminism section is still a bit hard to follow - perhaps a more chronological telling and some cultural examples of post-feminism (movies, etc.?)
  • I think that the readers of this article will generally not know a lot of the feminists listed - they will be looking for information. I would include a brief sentence describing each "person of interest" in the bulletted lists. I will warn you now that I think these lists will be challenged at FAC - I see nothing wrong with them in an overview article like this, but I would be prepared to defend them. (I think a little sentence attached to them would help with that defense.)
  • I don't know if it is possible to explain the "French feminism" section any better, but it is worth a shot. That material is always hard to teach. The most nebulous section in this article is the last part - "1970s to the present". I would try to explain it without using the theorists' own language - it is too jargony.
  • The "Black feminism" section is a bit vague and repetitive in its language. Also, it does not really explain what is different about the discrimination black women exprerience. The material on Davis is not clear - what idea did she develop and what word did Crenshaw come up with? We have to be explicit.
  • In the "Post-structural and postmodern feminism" section, the ideas have to be discussed without using the language of the theorists. Readers will not understand words like "performative". We have to translate for them. Also, what is Haraway moving towards (away from dualism, Christianity, etc.), but what is her vision of the future? The last paragraph of this section is not cohesive - the topic sentence on French feminism isn't explained in the paragraph and the rest of the sentences repeat what has been stated before in the article multiple times.
  • "Third-word feminism" is not explained very clearly - the long list of "-isms" is particularly unhelpful.
  • Perhaps "Ecofeminism" is receiving undue weight? Also, the one sentence "However, feminist and social ecologist Janet Biehl has criticized ecofeminism for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature and not enough on the actual conditions of women" needs to be better integrated into the section.
  • "Individualist feminism" needs a better initial definition.
  • The introduction to "Feminism and society"' is the same as the first paragraph of the "Civil rights" subsection.
  • I would de-emphasize the "Language" section in "Feminism and society" as it is less significant than many of the other section topics. It also needs some sort of historical and cultural context.
  • The coherence of the "Heterosexual relationships" section is not clear to me - what is the overarching theme there? I could move material from other places in the article to that section - why shouldn't I? How can we narrow its focus?
  • I wonder if feminist science fiction is receiving "undue weight". Also, the section seems a bit listy.
  • India:
  • Rajeshwari Sunder Rajan, Leela Kasturi, Sharmila Rege, and Vidyut Bhagat are Indian feminist essayists and critics writing in English. - What are they saying?
  • Contemporary Indian feminists are fighting for: individual autonomy, rights, freedom, independence, tolerance, cooperation, nonviolence and diversity, domestic violence, gender, stereotypes, sexuality, discrimination, sexism, non-objectification, freedom from patriarchy, the right to an abortion, reproductive rights, control of the female body, the right to a divorce, equal pay, maternity leave, breast feeding, prostitution, and education. - Break this list up and explain it. Some of these things don't make much sense. I tried to fix it as best as I could, but copy editing can only do so much.
  • What are the broad socialist goals of Japanese feminism?
  • The Norway section is only about the nineteenth century - shouldn't it have something about the present?
  • The "Feminism around the world" section seems a bit disjointed - why these countries and not others? What is the logic for describing these feminist movements? That logic is not made clear to the reader.
  • I wonder if the "Feminism and political movements" material shouldn't be integrated into the descriptions of the various feminisms. It seems so truncated now and it doesn't cohere into a section.

Small things:

  • The second paragraph of the lead (the wave paragraph) should probably be later in the lead and the waves need to be briefly explained (in just a phrase).
  • Each paragraph in the lead needs a "topic sentence" to introduce the main idea of the paragraph.
  • The third wave (1990s-present) is seen as both a continuation and a response to the perceived failures of the second wave. - I would give one example here.
  • Second-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity beginning in the early 1960s and lasting through the late 1980s and, as Imelda Whelehan suggests, it was a continuation of the earlier phase of feminism involving the suffragettes in the UK and USA. - In what way was it a continuation?
  • If first-wave feminism focused on rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination. - This is not entirely clear - perhaps clarifying a bit what is meant by discrimination? It just seems a bit vague.
  • The phrase "Women’s Liberation" was first used in the United States in 1964[1] and first appeared in print in 1966. - Give more context for this, otherwise it is just trivia.
  • Bra-burning also became associated with the movement. - Explain what this represented.
  • Kohlberg revised his scoring methods as a result of Gilligan's critique, after which boys and girls scored unevenly. - They still scored unevenly?
  • It now denotes a wide range of theories, some of which argue that postmodernism has destabilized the notion of a universal femininity, and take critical approach to previous feminist discourses, including challenges to second-wave ideas. - a little convoluted
  • According to liberal feminists, all women are capable of asserting their ability to achieve equality - I'm not quite sure what this means.
  • In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century both Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx were against the demonization of men and supported a proletarian revolution that would overcome as many male-female inequalities as possible. - This information has little context around it. It is just sitting there.
  • Colonial oppression may result in the glorification of pre-colonial culture, which, in cultures with traditions of power stratification along gender lines, could mean the acceptance of, or refusal to deal with, inherent issues of gender inequality. - This needs to be explained a bit better.
  • Feminism has driven cultural work in the fields of cinema, drama, literature and music. - Banal statement - so have a lot of things.
  • Virginia Balisn et al. characterize the growth in interest since 1970 in women's writing as "powerful". - Say who everyone is!
  • Caption: March 8 rally in Dhaka, Bangladesh - needs a year
  • Women have developed themselves according to the situations and has become advanced in various fields. They have become independent in respect of their reproductive right. - ungrammatical and vague (I can't fix it because I don't know what it is supposed to say)
  • Steven Rhoads' book Taking Sex Differences Seriously illustrates sex-dependent differences across a wide scope. - What does "across a wide scope" mean?
  • She argues rather than using evidence of innate gender difference there is an over-changing hypothesis to justify inequality and perpetuate stereotypes. - very unclear
  • Jeremy Bentham demanded equal rights for women in the eighteenth century. - Are we sure he demanded equal rights?
  • During the suffragettes' campaign anti-suffragists numbered 160 in 1902 in Britain. - This seems odd - I would have expected that thousands of men were opposed to women getting the vote.

Prose:

  • The article needs a good copy editor. I did quite a bit of work as I was reading, but it needs someone focused on that task. Here are some of the problems I noticed (I tried to fix some of these as I was reading, but more needs to be done):
  • I noticed an inconsistency in the capitalization of "feminism" and "Western", for example.
  • Repetition of words and phrases
  • General wordiness
  • Misuse of the hyphen - "second-wave" should only be hyphenated when it is a compound adjective ("second-wave feminism"). See WP:HYPHEN
  • All scholars need to be identified in the article with some sort of phrase so that reader know why to trust them (e.g. "feminist historian" or simply "scholar"). Names of scholars rarely mean much to the general public. They are no J-Lo.
  • Be sure that "feminists" and "feminism" are used in appropriate locations.
  • The article needs to have a consistent verb tense.

Layout:

  • I would look for an attractive picture for the lead - the feminism template is helpful but not eye-catching. Sometimes we have to pander.
  • The "See also" list is long - try to prune.
  • The "External link" list is long - can you break it up into sections or prune it?

MOS (I only list these things because I know that someday the editors will want to take the article to FAC and these things will matter):

  • Inconsistent citation style in the notes (see WP:CITE)
  • According to WP:MOS#Images, images should not be sized (see exceptions).
  • I delinked a lot of obvious terms (e.g. "men") and linked less obvious ones, but another sweep would be wise. See WP:MOS-L for suggestions on linking.
  • See WP:PUNC for rules on punctuation.
  • Terms that being defined should be italicized (see WP:ITALICS).
  • Inconsistent serial comma - make consistent one way or the other.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE - several issues here.

I am very impressed with the editors' ability to summarize so much material here. Overall, the article does a good job of balancing the general with the specific. Awadewit | talk 12:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I am very impresed by your thoughtful and constructive comments ... I hope you will contribute more to this article. If you feel capable of acting on any of your own suggestions, I encourage you to go ahead and do it! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I just don't have time at the moment. I have made commitments to other articles and unfortunately I don't see those commitments ending for another two years or so (seriously!). I'm always around for a review or a copy edit, though. Awadewit | talk 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Awadewit, for this truely comprehensive review, it really is very very helpful to have a fresh set of eyes and a mind that knows the subject give such a detailed examination of the page. I'm sure we can all work together on tackling these issues. Your points about the people of interest is pertinent and I think we should really consider removing them or drastically reducing them--Cailil talk 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a {{todo}} to this page. All teh points you've raised about style and layout are in that. There isn't enough room for teh content issues so after we've addressed the style issues we can put content issues into the "to do" list--Cailil talk 21:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Feminism Portal

Who thinks there should be a Portal:Feminism? I think its a good idea. What are your opinions on this? --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, but I was wondering if we might want to make it a sub-portal of Gender Studies? Phyesalis (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. What do you mean exactly, Phyesalis? Do you mean a Portal:Gender Studies? --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There's and an argument for their being both a Portal:feminism and Portal:Gender studies. However there would be significant duplication of material if both existed, so choosing one or the other is necessary - in which case I'd go for Portal:Gender studies as the more inclusive--Cailil talk 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Portal:Gender Studies sounds like a good idea too. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to moot the idea at Project Gender studies talk page?--Cailil talk 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, I assumed there was a Gender studies portal. What I meant was that, for example, the Portal:Human rights is a sub-portal of Portal:Law. In an effort to stave off duplication, I thought we could make feminism a sub-portal/sub-project of the Gender Studies portal/project. I've brought this up over on the WT:GS#Portal proposal. Phyesalis (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I totally agree and it sounds like a good idea. --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture for lead

As Awadewit suggested this article needs a picture for the lead. Unfortunately there is a dearth of pictures in the commons for this purpose - I'm going to suggest we use [[Image:8marchrallydhaka (55).JPG]] Has anybody any feelings about thsi or any thoughts about an alternative?--Cailil talk 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the one you just posted myself. --Kukini hablame aqui 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section?

If none exists it's a sign of heavy POV , I assume some of the feminists deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.149.17 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CRITICISM. Criticism sections are integrated into the text of an article otherwise they become POV sections - so at this point criticism (as has been said on this page already) exists in a number of sections, from post-feminism to anti-feminism and in other sections like postcolonial feminism. Also please sign your comments--Cailil talk 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Integrated" indeed!? Whitewashing, concealing and subverting is more like it. To call credible criticism of feminism 'antifeminism' is idiotic by definition and especially so when one will never pin down the definition of feminism itself, is typical of totalitarian thought control tactics, and is ever so pejorative to those who have credible criticisms to offer. Good faith indeed. How long do you believe you will get away with this slimy little girl-game here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.95.38 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cailil on this perspective. --Kukini hablame aqui 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no criticism section because these Animal Farm pigs (see Men's Awareness for more) and their female-male monkeys believe feminism (as a false psuedo-religion) is above criticism. Genuine criticism is pejoratively called "anti-feminism" in the typical totalitarian rape of reason for perverted political power. Cailil is front monkey for the mean spirited, misandric and idiotic Sisters who rule on this retarded article. Almost none of the genuine criticisms of feminism appear here but all the usual ridiculous rants do. You would think from reading this article that almost no one has written anything fine about the falsehoods of feminism (beginning with the absurd, unbalanced and patently false 'gender'-as female-ginning in an era where 98% of US military mortalities are male and only 2% are female). However, even a brief survey of the literature shows otherwise. To call genuine criticism of feminism "antifeminism" is like trying to say an Independent voter is 'antiDemocratic' or 'antiRepublican' for being critical of mainstream politicians. This article is packed with positive, pandering, and perverted POV masquerading as 'fact'. To point out the falseness in the whole foundation of modern feminism would be heretical here..where the Gulag Archipelago gang rules with inane 'rape culture' reasoning. "One in four" indeed!? Go google What Campus Rape Crisis? (La Times) or read Professing Feminism: Education and Indocrination in Women's Studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.95.38 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 02:40, 5 May 2008

To-do feminism list

I saw that the Feminism article needs copy-editing. What does this mean exactly? --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Subcategory/Task Force of Feminism

If you want more information or if you think you would be interested in participating, Take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Subcategory.2FTask_Force_of_Feminism or stop by my talk page and let me know. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Feminist

216.26.212.37 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Ashley Johnson I found it very interesting that you can compare how a word was defined in two different years. I think the newer version was better because it had more information with it.

Sexual politics

Hi there, is there an article on this topic under another name? There is one on a book dealing with the subject - Sexual Politics, but I can't find an article dealing with it in general. If somebody could change that redlink to a redirect that would be great, thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles

Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Persons of interest

While useful to some degree I think we need to take Awadweit's advice and rethink the "people of interest" lists. Prime example was the addition of Benazir Bhutto to the Islamic feminism list. While Bhuto was a powerful woman she was not an Islamic feminist. The problem is that there is a concept "out there" that: she's a powerful woman therefore she's a feminist. While this is sometimes true it is not actually accurate and is not an encyclopedic way of thinking. (Following that logic somebody could add Margaret Thatcher to the list of feminists - which would be an erroneous inclusion.) Getting back to the point, these lists will be challenged at GA and FAC level, why do we have them? How do they fit into the manual of style? Isn't their purpose served by the List of feminists already? When I ask myself these questions I think we need to remove the lists. What does anyone else think?--Cailil talk 20:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto once gave a speech entitled, Speech criticizing male domination of women of Islamic religion which was studied in at least one University course entitled "Islamic Feminism."[1] She was a strong voice for gender equality within the Islamic world, often characterized as feminist[2][3] and explicitly fighting for women's rights [4]. She was clearly an Islamic feminist activist. Of course, some feminists deny that Bhutto was a feminist, because they disagree with some of what Bhutto said; but Wikipedia should not embrace that point of view especially considering Bhutto self-identified as feminist.[5] Cailil's edit and edit summary removing Bhutto from the list violate WP:NPOV.
As for the "people of interest" links, I think they are useless and should be removed. People of interest should be wikified in the prose where their relevance to feminism is presented. Blackworm (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On a point of order Blackworm the fact that Bhutto stood-up for feminist and women rights issues in an Islamic state is undisputed. And for the record I have no issue with her or anything she said. Your assertion, is based upon something I should not have taken for granted above, that editors would know what an Islamic feminist is. So what is an Islamic feminist - is it a feminist who happens to be a Muslim or live in a Muslim country, or is it a feminist who is explicitly engaged with issues of Muslim theology? We have Islamic feminism listed under religion here. We have it side by side with Christian feminism and Jewish feminism, both of which deal with theological issues. There is a difference between being a muslim and a feminist and being part of the Islamic feminist movement. This is why I am objecting to her inclusion on that list (I would have had no problem with her on the Postcolonial feminism and third-world_feminism list, because that has is about feminism in formerly colonized regions).
My wording might be unclear above, I apologize if it is. Obviously Bhutto is a feminist (just like Mary Robinson is a feminist), I have no problem with Bhutto being described as a feminist in the ordinary sense - my issue is with her inclusion on that list and the general use of those lists here. If somebody added Mary Robinson to the list of Liberal feminists I would remove her from it too. Yes she is liberal, yes she is a feminist but there is no description of her as a liberal feminist (which is a different thing to being a liberal and a feminist) - therefore that inclusion would be OR.
Now I don't believe I'm infallible so if I'm wrong please contradict me but although she is discussed and/or mentioned in some books to do with women's rights in Muslim countries where is she described as an Islamic feminist who deals with theological issues? I've only read a few books in this area, perhaps Blackworm you have done more research than I?
Having said that I'm happy to abide by consensus here so if everyone else thinks she should go on the list fine. Also can we keep in mind the point of this thread is the future of the people of interest lists. I would not have answered the above in such length but for the serious accusation that Blackworm leveled at me. Also, I have requested an overview of my edit by a third party--Cailil talk 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There was indeed somewhat of a misunderstanding between us. The section was "persons of interest," not "Islamic feminist activists" nor "persons who are feminists and explicitly engaged with issues of Muslim theology." Couldn't there indeed conceivably also be other "persons of interest" to the subject without being involved in feminism at all?
I am also not comfortable with you requiring other criteria than one being Islamic and a feminist to justify calling someone an "Islamic feminist." What is a black feminist? Is it a feminist who, in your words, "happens to be" black? I say, yes. It doesn't mean they are specifically involved in "Black feminism" however. They just "happen to be" a black feminist. If they are further involved with Black feminism, they are Black feminism proponents. (Note why the word "black" is capitalized in "Black feminism" but not in "black feminist.") They just "happen to be" a black feminist. I believe the same of "Islamic feminist," whether I have "researched" the subject of Islamic feminism more than you or not. Perhaps my error is that I don't allow "experts" to tell me I'm wrong to use an adjective or two plus a noun as an intersection of each of the properties, when I believe it is a perfectly reasonable usage? Does that accurately describe what you are suggesting I do? And again, if your criteria for inclusion in that list is that one is a proponent of Islamic feminism, then the list title should be "proponents of Islamic feminism," not "persons of interest." See also WP:LIST: Embedded lists should have a lead paragraph in cases where the title is ambiguous or when the list has non-obvious characteristics.
I don't believe Wikipedia is a list of persons related to topics. I don't believe the feminism article should contain any lists of propopents, especially in sections that already have sub-articles. If these lists must be there they should be summarized as a link to a subarticle, which could hopefully eventually develop into a stub with text describing the person's contribution. If these people are notable proponents, we should present something they said or did, not merely list them. All this is IMO, of course; I will abide by consensus. Blackworm (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well this is where WP:PROVEIT really comes into its own. A feminist movement like Black feminism is a specific cultural, social and historical movement - being an African-American woman and a feminist is not the same thing as being part of the Black feminist movement (Cheryl Clarke and Patricia Hill Collins[1] have actually written articles about the issues with the definition of black feminists as you are outlining it above). Black feminism is a specific ideological construct & discourse[2][3]. Just like Marxist feminism is or Christian feminism is or Islamic feminism is. (in the case of Black feminism it is described as "a process of self-conscious struggle [towards] ... a humanist vision of community"[1]) Even the concept of French feminism is defined by a common philosophical grouping (Julia Kristeva, from Bulgaria, is considered to be a "French Feminist" becuase of the discourses in which her work are engaged[4]). A casual linking of ideas (muslim+woman+feminist = Islamic feminist) is not encyclopedic thinking (it actually borders on WP:OR), journalists might do it all the time but in an encyclopedia we use reliable third party sources to define what Islamic feminism is (btw that article needs attention in this regard) and to decide who is part of that movement and who might be better categorized as "a Feminist from Pakistan". There are at least 4 books which are quite good as a beginning in researching the difference between Islamic feminism and feminism in Islamic countries[5][6][7][8] Your point is made Blackworm and I broadly agree with you about the lists but at this time I think this thread has been derailed and it's purpose lost--Cailil talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are asking me to prove that a black feminist is a feminist who is black. I believe this follows from fundamental principles of the English language. I understand you use the phrase differently, but contrary to your claims, encyclopedia are for people without specialist knowledge. I understand you have books detailing what Islamic feminism is, and note that I do not dispute what Islamic feminism is, I dispute only the claim that an Islamic feminist is necessarily a proponent of Islamic feminism under that definition.
How has this thread been derailed? Blackworm (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would like to counter your statement, there is no description of [Mary Robinson] as a liberal feminist. Please see: In the years as Irish head of State, Mary Robinson has redefined this primarily ceremonial role. A prominent liberal feminist and high achiever academically ...[6] Also, When President Robinson was elected it caused a stir throughout the world. [...] As people abroad saw it, we had a liberal feminist President elected in what they perceived, [...][7] There are other examples. Blackworm (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You asked why is this thread derailed - well this thread is entitled persons of interest, it was about the future of those lists - it's now about your objections. Secondly, you are incorrect a parliament discussion is not necessarily a reliable source for definitive categorization, nor does the european list of women in decision making contradict the library of definitions for Liberal feminism as being a historically and culturally specific socio-political & philiosophical movement. In this case it would be impossible for Mrs Robinson to be part of the same Liberal feminist grouping since that movement is American being bound-up with NOW and the ERA (there was also a British dimension to that broader movement). There is no doubt that she was influenced by them but that's not the same thing as being part of that same movement. Also above when you ask "If I understand you correctly, you are asking me to prove that a black feminist is a feminist who is black" - you have totally misunderstood everything I said above if you are left with this idea. Please re-read the posts. Simply put Black feminism is a philosophical movement. African-American women don't automatically belong to that category just because of their race - they could be radical feminists or marxist feminists etc. As I said before scholars have already explained why your definition of black feminism (a feminist who is black) is inaccurate. Similarly categorizing a muslim woman as an Islamic feminist just because of her religion and/or ethnicity is wrong. I am disengaged from this--Cailil talk 11:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

how are we now as far as being liberal or radical? the u.s. as a whole?

04:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)kc 02-25-08

Persons of interest lists

cross posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force
I've made a "mock-up" of this article minus the "persons of interest lists" in my sandbox. I realize that edits like IronAngelAlice's are good contributions but the lists are in breach of WP:LIST and they do not conform to the style for summary articles. What I'm proposing is we either merge these lists into the see also sections of the appropriate sub-articles or we prune them and use {{related}} to list the most notable terms (3-5). Unless anyone objects to the removal of the lists I'm going to remove them at the weekend--Cailil talk 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I made this edit earlier this morning. I've also made a number of grammar and syntax changes. However probably the biggest change is the commenting out of the Anita Hill case. As Awadewit said months ago the weight it was being given may be undue - I am not 100% sure of the need for this article to delve into the story of that case so fo the moment I've commented it out. If the page is not making sense without it we should reintroduce it either in part or in whole. Any other opinions?--Cailil talk 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Have had to revert IP 117.200.224.164 who was re-adding spam and blanking {{fact}} templates--Cailil talk 19:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POVCHECK

Okay, I've removed the povcheck template added by IP 69.140.152.55 as it is very unclear what they are asking for to be checked. I left them a note about this already[8]. If anyone wants to discuss POV in a section could they please put a message here as well as putting a template in the article. It will allow the rest of us to understand what exactly is being disputed / asked to be checked--Cailil talk 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Zaphraud's edit

I've undone this edit by User:Zaphraud but I'm assuming good faith. There are a number of issues with it - which need discussion and explanation.
First of all giving Lactivism the weight Zaphraud's edit did was undue. This page has not gone into reproductive rights or other legal rights in this way because it's linking to those articles instead. Secondly, everything added needs sourcing. What was added was completely unsourced (see WP:PROVEIT). Thirdly, there needs to be a source that specifies exactly why this belongs here rather than at Women's rights. Fourthly, why put this in the history section?
The other move Zaphraud made in the edit, and the one I have serious issues with, was to put French feminism in the 'regional feminism' section. This was probably done in the best faith and probably because teh subject has the name "French feminism". The problem is putting that subject into 'regional feminisms' is inaccurate. French feminism is also known as Poststructural feminism and is a highly significant movement in Feminist thought and philosophy it belongs in the history section. Feminism in France and French feminism are two distinct subjects - it is confusing so your move was totally understandable.
I certainly wouldn't have a problem with some info on lactivism being here but it needs to be given due weight and no more than that. The info would also need proper sourcing. I'm putting a link to it into the 'See also' section--Cailil talk 13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it there, so I will add it for ya. I will try to bring more sourced information in the future; the challenge here I am assuming is finding it from reporters who discuss the event in terms of women's rights rather than just reporting about the event in question? What would be preferred for this article?
If you take a look at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm you will find a list of breastfeeding laws, state by state. It really is shocking how recently (post 2000, all too often) that public law has been altered to prevent breastfeeding from being defined as public obscenity or as an act that a corporate entity can use as an excuse to tell someone to leave. Also, entirely too many citizens are totally unaware that the laws have been changed, as is often the case whenever any law has changed. How long did it take to educate most people about the "new" sexual harassment laws when THAT situation was rectified how long ago? Most people have a long way to go towards understanding these newly guaranteed rights and why they are so important. Zaphraud (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt that a mother's right to nurse in public is an important woman's issue. And it has a place in feminist debate. But we cannot give it undue weight. Our own views on the matter are irrelevant. Since this is an article on feminism, the only questions are: (1) which feminists are concerned with lactivism? (2) For these feminists, is lactivism a major concern or a minor concern? (3) within the feminist movement, are these feminists highly notable, un-notable, or somewhere in-between? Provide reliable sources that answer these questions, and we can determine how much weight to give the matter in this article. And, as Calil said, there is nothing at all wrong with having a separate Wikipedia article entirely devoted to this topic (see the journal article a couple of years ago by Jackie Wolf in Signs as a valuable source), going into detail about the struggle (1) with medical professionals (2) with employers (3) with legislators and (4) with feminists - a detailed history of each of these struggles and the various views within them, presented in an NPOV way (no room for the word "shocking") would make for a great article, which of course we could link to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

social construction in the lede

A while ago we had a discussion about naming Judith Butler in the lede (see here) - this was in connection with social construction of gender. We decided to remove mention of her from the line. I've just reworded it - to reduce the jargon and to remove ambiguity that was being caused by whether "some" or "certain" gender roles are socially constructed in these scholars views. (The sources say that 'gender roles are socially constructed' - they don't say "certain ones".)

The line now reads:

Other feminists have argued that gender roles are social rather than biological phenomena.[16][17][18]

I think it would be beneficial to qualify who says this. Whether we name de Beauvoir, West and Zimmerman and/or Judith Butler, I would strongly suggest we name drop - because this view is specific to certain people and certain theories--Cailil talk 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Equal rights or rights?

Case in point.

The polarization of the sexes, is evident in the lack of clear logic showing that men, benefit from women working, ie their wives, girlfriends, mothers; this type of "bridge logic" as I will call it is totally lacking.

Anyway the point of this is that I recall as a member of the Credit Union, the manager stated quite clearly, that the Union was in total compliance with women's equality employment legislation.

She then laughed. All our employees are women.

So it is important to clearly state that feminism, was more about rights for women, rather than equal rights for women. In some cases the approach was not at all about gender fairness.

The devil is in the details.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Conversation involving IP User:128.111.95.171 were made by a banned user and have been removed as per WP:BAN - the comments of good faith editors who replied to the IP have been removed also but the removal of their comments is not a reflection on them in any way--Cailil talk 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

There is a distinct lack of NPOV and a presence of original research in the opening paragraph: Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women.[citation needed]

There is no consensus that feminism is concerned with gender equalities and a large proportion of the population would also question that it is concerned with equal rights. The use of the word more instead of equal would cover both positions and conform to NPOV. A citation is needed to show that the introductory paragraph isn't a personal opinion or mash-up of multiple sources. SorsImmanis1 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "more" goes too far, implying a desire for inequality rather than merely a focus on women's rights. I changed it to read:
Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with discrimination against women, and women's rights.
This addresses the problem of "equal" (and the bizarre linking of the phrase "equal rights" to "women's rights"), and also the issue of whether feminism focuses on all "gender discrimination" or specifically discrimination against women. Let me know what you think. Blackworm (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I agree that a citation would be preferable, but was hoping to at least come up with something you may accept as neutral, as a start. Blackworm (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that would be an acceptably neutral and factual description. Perhaps others can comment on whether this should be further qualified with a citation. SorsImmanis1 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your reword of the lede is good Blackworm. However I must point out that "equal rights for women" is part of what feminism is and was. If SorsImmanis1 wants to dispute what is factual, sourced and academically mainstream they must provide extraordinary sources for their extraordinary claims - and even then they must be given only due weight (see also WP:FRINGE). If sucha factual challenge is launched it must be proven. Also to address the claim about "no consensus" - please see the last 3 talk archives for the discussions of the lede also see books referenced in the article and below. I would also advise that the misuse of tags is considered pointy and disruptive - If no rationale for the tagging is given they will be removed.
Also lede sentences summarize the article they do not always need cites - they must be verifiable and must reflect what is cited within article. However if there is a need to cite more books about "equal rights for women" as a goal of feminism please see Feminism and suffrage: the emergence of an independent women's movement in America, 1848-1869[9] British feminism in the twentieth century[10], The Equal Rights Amendment: The History and the Movement[11], Feminism and Citizenship[12], Women's Movements in the United States: Woman Suffrage, Equal Rights, and Beyond[13] or Politics, feminism, and the reformation of gender[14]. There needs to be mention of this in the lede it is the most prevalent aspect of the history of feminism--Cailil talk 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on the neutrality of the wording of the Lede as per WP:NPOV . Now with regards to the need to cite sources in the Lede you will find on closer examination of your link to WP:LEAD that it states "It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." which supplies the reason you have requested as to why the article has been tagged. Since we are in agreement that the reword is good the next stage is to decide whether or not it appropriate to to source this and I would welcome your opinion on this. Please also read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence to note that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". This highlights your error in believing that the burden of proof is not on the editor who has added or reinstated the material. As you have mentioned, you have a requirement to prove your contribution to this lede and ensure that you provide a WP:NPOV for your contributions so that we can provide a high quality entry. I find accusations of the misuse of tags to be indicative that you are not assuming Good Faith and suggest that the best outcome will be achieved should you follow the policies outlined at WP:Good_Faith. For every source you provide citing the necessity of defining the goal as that of equal rights in your research to prove that this is the consensus I will provide one where the author describes the goal of more rights. I believe this will establish that you cannot prove your proposed addition or reinstatement is the consensus and allow us to retain a representative and undisputed lede as that satisfies WP:V. Thank you for your your contributions to this discussion. I will provide my 6 sources as promised after eating!SorsImmanis1 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Here are my first 6 sources indicating the goal is not equal rights but rather an increase, or more rights
1.Bosch, Mineke.Colonial Dimensions of Dutch Women's Suffrage: Aletta Jacobs's Travel Letters from Africa and Asia, 1911-1912 Journal of Women's History - Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 1999, pp. 8-34"several social projects directed toward women, among them the foundation of an association to promote the education of indigenous medical women" 2.Ahmadi, Fereshteh, 1958-Islamic Feminism in Iran: Feminism in a New Islamic Context Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion - Volume 22, Number 2, Fall 2006, pp. 33-53 - "we're all working to promote the status of women." 3.Richards, Patricia, 1971-The Politics of Difference and Women's Rights: Lessons from Pobladoras and Mapuche Women in Chile"Despite similarities between the two cases, they have divergent implications for broadening women's rights" 4.Adamson, Clarissa.Gendered Anxieties:Islam, Women's Rights, and Moral Hierarchy in Java Anthropological Quarterly - Volume 80, Number 1, Winter 2007, pp. 5-37 -"This paper examines these efforts through a close reading of the discursive shifts and arguments that take place in the context of programs designed to promote women's rights in Islamic education in Java." 5.Emancipating the Female Sex. The Struggle for Women's Rights in Brazil, 1850- 1940. By June Hahner. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990)"In both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, female activists working to improve their position in Brazilian society sought more rights for women" 6.Fidelis, Malgorzata. "Participation in the Creative Work of the Nation:" Polish Women Intellectuals in the Cultural Construction of Female Gender Roles, 1864-1890 Journal of Women's History - Volume 13, Number 1, Spring 2001, pp. 108-125 "Progressive women emphasized womens rights"
From www.feminist.com:
"At this year's loya jirga, an Afghan woman became a presidential candidate for the first time in the country's history. Two women secured seats as ministers, and 200 women across the country joined more than 1,300 men to demand more rights for women." from www.feminist.com [[9]] - SorsImmanis1 (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your tagging of the article SorsImmanis1 as your above post does not. Also I have a quick question have you had a chace to read through the whole of the articles that you have listed above or just their abstracts? I'm asking because as I'm reading through five of them (I haven't got June Hahner's essay yet as Jstor is cranky) I think you would be surprised by how many times the words "equal" and "rights" crop-up together. I'll post a summary of what they state about feminism and rights tomorrow--Cailil talk 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Opening paragraph (section break #1)

Here is another ground for a POV dispute: the seventh sentence of the article assumes the truth of the proposition that "a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy" includes "reproductive rights" such as "the right to abortion" and "access to contraception." To assume the truth of something controversial is nearly as POV as to advocate it.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again IP 69.140.152.55 that's not an opinion that is a sourced statement (cited to two but many many more could be cited). This has already been discussed in the archives. This talk page is not a forum for debating abortion--Cailil talk 10:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not want to discuss the merit of the abortion issue itself, but the article has to be neutral. The article, however, assumes the truth of something that is debated, which is nearly as POV as actually advocating it.
The fact that feminists are in favor of the right to abortion is generally undisputed. That the right to abortion is part of "a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy," however, is an implied point of view. At the very least, the paragraph can be rephrased so that the POV is not assumed to be a true fact.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Responding to your original post, [10] which is why it isn't a good idea to modify the content of your comments this much after you have saved them. Striking out is better.
Mmm. Well if it has been accepted by one hundred sources and the US Supreme Court then that makes it pretty much the mainstream opinion, and therefore it is appropriate to give due weight to that generally accepted view. WP:UNDUE--Slp1 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a majority opinion, but still an opinion. Referring to the archive, "that 'Feminism campaigns for the right to abortion'" is a fair statement of fact. The way that it is written now, however, is not neutral.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
69.140.152.55 that's almost exactly what the article says already. However, I personally would have no problem changing the words "Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as" to "Feminist activists have campaigned for..". I really don't see what is POV about the semantics of "are concerned with issues of" but I'd be prepared to support a change to "have campaigned for"--Cailil talk 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The question is not whether feminists have "been concerned with issues such as" or "have campaigned for" the right to abortion. That feminists are concerned with establishing abortion as a right is unquestioned. The way that the sentence is written now, however, assumes (without question) the truth of the POV that it describes. Please write it in a more neutral manner.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Orangemike has attempted to address this here--Cailil talk 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence still assumes the truth of the point of view that it describes. You are assuming that the right to abortion, or the right to choose an abortion, is valid. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) How does it assume the truth of anything 69.140.152.55? It is not saying abortion is a right, the line reads:

Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as ... a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to choose whether to have an abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care)

What clauses exactly are you saying are POV and what sources have you to back that up?--Cailil talk 20:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I can even add a source for the way Orangemike hs worded the Parenthetical (that is "in brackets") explanation of the feminist perspective on a woman's right to bodily integrity as including reproductive rights the choice to have an abortion: 'Reproductive Freedom: Beyond "A Woman's Right to Choose"' by Petchesky in Signs, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1980)[11]--Cailil talk 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The POV consists in assuming the validity of reproductive rights, without acknowledging the controversy surrounding them, by subsuming them under the uncontroversial right to bodily integrity and autonomy.
It is unquestioned that feminists have been concerned with, or have campaigned for, reproductive rights, or the right to abortion or to choose to have an abortion, but this should be worded in a way that is more neutral and does not take a position on the correctness of what the feminists are doing. To assume that reproductive rights inherently follow from a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy is just as much to take a position as if you were to directly state an opinion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry 69.140.152.55 but you need to tell us where it is assuming anything - what are the words that you see as problematic. And then what are your sources for your contentions?--Cailil talk 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that scholarly sources tend to support the assertion that the right of bodily integrity and autonomy includes reproductive rights does not negate the fact that it is a point of view, and one that is not neutral.
Are you requesting a source that specifically supports the assertion that a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy does not include abortion? That this is controversial is common knowledge. To assume the truth of something is almost tantamount to advocating it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not 69.140.152.55 this not the place for that discussion. The source I have is about how feminists view right of bodily integrity and autonomy. Please if you want us to improve the article can you spell out what you think needs changing - which words in the text are problematic in your view and what sources have you that show the feminist perspective on bodily integrity in another way?--Cailil talk 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You and I agree that this is how feminists view the right of bodily integrity and autonomy. The paragraph, however, should not be written from this point of view. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That is what it says now 69.140.152.55. Is your problem with the use of parenthesis? Nobody can help you if you don't show us exactly what you mean--Cailil talk 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph (section break #2)

It seems that SorsImmanis1 is making a point about semantics. Of course women are demanding more rights - more rights than they currently have. That is because they currently have fewer rights or privileges than men. In other words, the struggle to have equal rights with men is the same thing as the struggle to have more rights than women have traditionally had. It is the same thing. My problem with the opening is that certain significant strands of feminism are also concerned with rights for men. The way I would open the lead is by saying that feminism involves a critique of inequalities between men and women. It is only in the context of patriarchy i.e. inequality between men and women that we can clear up the point that for women to struggle for more rights than they currently have is motivated by their desire to have equal rights with men. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"That is because they currently have fewer rights or privileges than men." That is a disputed POV, as is the rest of your comment. Some view feminism as involving "a critique of inequalities between men and women," while others see it as involving "a critique of inequalities between men and women where women are perceived to be disadvantaged, and advocacy of more inequality between men and women where the inequality benefits women." That is the problem of defining feminism strictly in terms of some feminists' view of it. Where there is dispute, views must be attributed to the sources. Blackworm (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Your point about attribution is good Blackworm but the lede is the wrong place for it - the civil rights section would be more appropriate. The problem with such attribution in the lede for the issue of "equal rights" is that those who don't see feminism's goal as equality are not in the mainstream - one could cite over 200 books, out of hand, that see the major goal of feminism as equality of the sexes. Other views and the more nuanced opinions are and should be discussed within the article however the lede is a summary and highlights the major mainstream attitudes. Attribution of feminism's goal as equality of sexes would require a list of hundreds of names - that's why it is mainstream and does not need attribution in the lede. Whereas in the case of Judith Butler who has a specific argument (that all gender roles are performed) does need attribution in the lede.
I would also challenge the assertion that there is a "disputed POV" here - the problem here is that SorsImmanis1 is disputing mainstream sources and has misinterpreted the sources he quoted as supporting his view - I have not posted summaries of the articles he listed as that would take up an enormous amount of space - but I can do it if necessary. I would in the interim recommend everyone to read the sources he lists (which are all available online through google) to verify the point that Slrubenstein makes and my point that SorsImmanis1 has misinterpreted the sources - at least 5 of which (I have read oen of them) talk about "equality" and "equal rights" at various points--Cailil talk 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and not the presentation of the more popular view (or the more popular view among Wikipedia editors) as fact. Consider, for example, how the Encarta encyclopedia introduces feminism: Feminism, collective term for systems of belief and theories that pay special attention to women’s rights and women’s position in culture and society. The term tends to be used for the women’s rights movement, which began in the late 18th century and continues to campaign for complete political, social, and economic equality between women and men. [...] Feminists are united by the idea that women’s position in society is unequal to that of men, and that society is structured in such a way as to benefit men to the political, social, and economic detriment of women.[12] I have no dispute with any of that -- note phrases like "united by the idea" that attribute the view properly. The views about feminism you and Slrubenstein are attempting to present as fact are disputed, I'm afraid. Blackworm (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we are still getting tangled up in semantics. It is verifiable that feminism is a movement that fights for equal rights for women, a movement that sees women as having fewer rights or privileges than men and therefore feels women should have more. This statement makes no claims about the actual status of women or the relationship between men and women. In other words, it does not claim that men and women are unequal. Blackworm seems to be concerned that the claim that patriarchy exists, that women are systematically disadvantaged relative to men, needs verification. I agree and know of many sources that would support this, but this is not my point, my point is that the claim that women are systematically disadvantaged is a fundamentally different claim than the claim that feminism is a movement that struggles for equal rights. One is a claim about the world (or at least our society), the other is a claim about feminism. An analogy: To state that "Christianity is the religion that views Jesus as divine" is not the same as stating "Jesus is divine." Blackworm seems to be confusing facts about feminism with facts about the world. Many people are not feminists and this fact is tantamount to saying that many people do not believe that women are disadvantaged or that women need to fight for equal rights with men. I do not think anyone here would dispute this. But this article is about feminism, and the facts that Calil and I are presenting are facts about feminism and are not disputed by any notable mainstream source. Blackworm, you need to be able to tell the difference between providing an accurate account of what feminism is, versus disagreeing with feminism. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, the standard is "reliable source," not "mainstream source." [...], feminism has never been a tranquil movement, or a cheerfully anarchic one. It has always been plagued by bitter civil wars over conflicting ideas about sexuality and gender which lead to conflicting visions of law and social policy. If men and women are naturally and consistently different in terms of character, temperament, and moral sensibility, then the law should treat them differently, as it has through most of our history, with labor legislation that protects women, for example, or with laws preferring women in custody disputes: special protection for women, not equal rights, becomes a feminist goal.[13] (Emphasis mine.)
There's even more extreme views, published in peer-reviewed journals, that quite clearly indicate dispute regarding feminism's goals: A central project of many feminist utopias is the ‘Great Divorce,’ that is, the attempt to eliminate men from the ideal society through androcide, exile, or chemical alterations.[14] If, as you indicate above, the views about feminism you wish to present as fact are instead attributed to feminists, then there is no problem. Blackworm (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we may be reaching agreement. I think that "equal rights for women" is at least in the US and UK the most common understanding of feminism. If your point is that there are other forms of feminism, I absolutely agree, and I do not think the intro should suggest that there is only one. Please bear in mind that when I said the struggle for equal rights and more rights is the same, I was responding not to you but to the specific comments of another user. I stand by what I said, but do not think that I said this is the only form of feminism. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My point isn't quite that there are other forms of feminism; the point is that the view that feminism has as a unifying characteristic the promotion of equal rights is just that -- a view; in this case, a view that has significant (i.e. more than fringe) opposition. As such, it must be attributed, per WP:V. If, as you seem to agree, there are significant "forms of feminism" that do not <insert action here> then it follows that feminism considered as a whole does not universally <insert action here>. This can be addressed trivially with qualifiers and attributions, as I suggest above. Blackworm (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm you may be missing the logic of what I'm presenting. By mainstream sources I mean the majority (the vast overwhelming majority) of verifiable and reliable sources (books, journals etc etc). Fringe theories are the opposite of mainstream theories. See Wikipedia:FRINGE#Identifying_fringe_theories for further explanation. Hence my point that hundreds of books and scholars can be quoted as referring to feminism as a movement for equality and as charting that history - I was taking for graned that users were familiar with WP:FRINGE's terminology - apologies for that. Now there are those like Separatist feminists who hold views (ie Mary Daly) that are not about equal rights but fringe ideas do not need to be given equal weight in the lede sentence, even less popular ideas must only be given due weight. That said I think the current (your reword of the) lede sentence is good and could stay. But the point that feminism is (generally) a movement for equality and equal rights needs to go into the lede somewhere it's what the sources say.--Cailil talk 10:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I think your reference to the "united by the idea" wording coudl be a start. How about: "Many forms of feminism are united by the politics of equal rights for women[15] --Cailil talk 11:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Having gone through the dictionary definitions (you can see them in my replies to SorsImmanis1 below) which all concur that feminism is about equality I'd like to suggest this reword for the first line of the lede. "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies united by the politics of women's rights and equality." This could be sourced by Humm as my earlier suggestion is and to the Collins, and Cambridge UP dictionaries but I think it better to to leave this lede sentence without attribution and go into detail about women's rights and equality in the history section using the sources listed here but giving the ideas more time and space. Therein we can also mention the other variations on what feminism is--Cailil talk 16:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC) In my above suggestion "women's rights and equality" could all link to women's rights or to women's rights and discrimination for equality (as there is only a dab entry rather than a single page for "Equality")--Cailil talk 18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I don't share your desire to put statements in Wikipedia that are not sourced. WP:V must be upheld. I also don't share your opinions on consensus and fringe theories. Whether you like it or not, two facts supported by the above cites (one, a mainstream magazine, the other, a peer-reviewed journal) undermine your claims: (1) feminism is criticized precisely regarding the notion that it truly supports equal rights, and (2) some flavors of feminism clearly wish to subjugate or eliminate males. Thus, there is no consensus that feminism is "unified" in seeking equality or equal rights. I don't support your edit because it fails to say what feminism is -- I am not sure what you mean by "united by the politics of women's rights and equality," but it seems to me the same could be said of anti-feminists, for example. What does it mean to be "united by the politics of" something, exactly? Blackworm (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to Humm would have to be summarized as "Humm states that...", per WP:V. Blackworm (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm have a look a WP:LEAD and then have a look at the lead sentences of any number of articles in Wikipedia:Featured_articles - please tell me exactly how many of them use attribution in line one of the lede? I'm asking this because it's just unnecessary, citation would be fine - attribution is however unnecessary for the lede line - especially when it is close to many dictionary definitions of the subject.
BTW writing a general summarized lede sentence is not a desire "to put statements in Wikipedia that are not sourced" and I'm respectfully asking you to refactor or withdraw that. I have stated ad nauseum (to SorsImmanus1) how this is sourced below. I have already outlined WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE to you here (which are site policy and keystones of WP:NPOV as ruled upon by Arbcom not my opinion). But I'm afraid what you arguing above tends more towards a criticism of the subject of feminism rather than a summary of the mainstream sourced definitions of it.
I'm drawing on sources on to write this lede sentence as a summary of the article's major points. General definitions of feminism are supplied by Humm, the dictionary and others that all state feminism is about equality. And as I said to SorsImmanus1 if one disputes that feminism is equated with a movement for equal rights for women then one disputes dictionary definitions of feminism. See below.
SLR has suggested this on my talk page: "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies united by the politics of women's rights, gender difference, and gender inequality." as I said there I'd verge on saying "equality of the sexes" rather than "gender inequality". We could also say "concerned with" rather than "united by" if you see a major problem with Humm's wording (I personally don't)
BTW Blackworm I've had a long day of this (below) and if I sound terse i do apologize it's not directed at you--Cailil talk 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :) No problem, Cailil. I always write as if I've had a long day of everything. My response below:
I don't dispute WP policy, I dispute your views that (1) the material I bring is fringe, or representative of a fringe position under the meaning given by WP:FRINGE, and (2) there is a consensus, with the only opposition being that of a tiny minority, that feminism universally strives for equal rights for men and women. I believe I have shown these two views to be disputed by bringing reliable sources.
Many FA's indeed don't source their lead sections. I would assume that is because nothing in those lead sections is challenged, and all statements which reflect views (rather than verified facts) are attributed (thus rendering them facts), and follow from sources subsequently brought. Here, the lead statements you propose are challenged on the basis that they present a view as a fact. As I understand it, when an editor requests a source for a statement in an article, even in the lead section, a source must be provided and any views attributed. I've struck out the statement you objected to, but I do not believe it is inaccurate to note that you are resisting sourcing the lead section with cites, unless I misunderstand you. Note that I don't insist everything be sourced; I left what we have now with no source because I don't challenge it.
You write: "And as I said to SorsImmanus1 if you dispute feminism's equation with a movement for equal rights for women you are disputing a dictionary definition." Whether I personally dispute it is immaterial; I present reliable and mainstream sources above that dispute it, and thus the view ("equation") must be presented as a view (attributed, per WP:V), and not a verified fact. I have not commented directly on feminism here at all, and I respectfully ask that you remove or refactor your statement, "what you arguing above tends more towards a criticism of the subject of feminism," or point out specific instances where I personally criticized feminism in this discussion. I'd prefer the former, as I'd like to keep this about edits rather than editors.
"Concerned about the politics of" is much more understandable, but again, the same could be said of opposition to feminism and thus I really don't think that's a better phrasing of what feminism is. I'm really not sure why this is a preferable formulation to what we have now, and perhaps you could give some insight on your view that it is. Blackworm (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem using footnotes here to reference where the ideas come from, but the lack of attribution (that is name dropping) in line 1 of articles is not becuase the lines are/were unchallenged - it's becuase they are the lede lines. Lede lines are very very general and give weight to the mainstream definition of the subject (taken from WP:RS within the article). I respectfully have to say that it is an untenable position to argue against the majority of reliable sources on feminist history and dictionary definitions (that define it as about a movement for equality). That sort of discussion / debate is about the subject rather than a summary of what the mainstream sources say. In my above post "Discussion of the subject rather than the sources" was more to my meaning than criticism of the subject. You see if you challenge "feminism is a movement for equality" - you are challenging the dictionary defs.
Also it would be inappropriate to stress the less than mainstream strands of an idea in the lede line - becuase it gives those like Mary Daly far far too much weight. Feminism is not defined as female supremacism in the dictionaries because in general it's about a movement/doctrine focussed on achieving equal treatment for women (I think that's basically the Cambridge UP Dictionary definition). And that line should reflect something like the dictionary definitions. A second line could say something like: "there are different opinions within feminism on how to achieve these goals" and something about other forms having different goals / focusses. But I really do think veering away from the equality of the sexes is an untenable position from the point of view of WP:LEAD, WP:DUE & WP:FRINGE. (What I'm saying here is based on these three policies - esp. WP:LEAD)
On the phraseology, well yes the ideas of feminism would have to have something to do with the views of anti-feminism (which would be opposite of what feminism contends). Just as Theism is the belief in a deity or deities - Atheism is not believing in a deity or deities - so intersection is not a bad thing. Basically, I think the term "discrimination against women" which is in the lede right now could be better worded as "equality" becuase that's what it means. It is a linguistic point but when an idea is for something they are not for the reverse of its negative. Forgive this example but if I want sugar in my tea - I want sugar in my tea, rather than being against not having sugar in my tea. There is a kind of double negative structure of thought in "Feminism is concerned with discrimination against women" - whereas saying feminism is for women's equality is much simpler- I hope that sheds some light on my reasoning-Cailil talk 22:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Related to the above post explaining double negatives etc. When an idea is (like Antifeminism) against something it is simpler to use negative phraseology. For example Antiintellectualism "Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits"; or anticommunism, etc. Because in many ways these anti- ideas are reacting to something else or are at least named as being in reaction to them--Cailil talk 23:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW thank you for the strike--Cailil talk 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph (section break #2) edit point

  • And so with all of that said I want to make this suggestion:

    Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender difference and with women's rights and equality.

    . The phrasing here is women's rights and equality - as in "women's equality". Again I'm happy to source this to dictionaries, to Humm and others if citation is insisted upon. This is a compromise between the 3 suggestions but I think it still works as an accurate summary of what is in the article and reflects the mainstream reliably sourced definitions of feminism elsewhere--Cailil talk 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see how that's a compromise at all, since it still implies that it is a near-universally accepted view that feminism has as its goal to promote the equal rights of men and women. My original response follows:
In response to: "it is an untenable position to argue against the majority of reliable sources on feminist history and dictionary definitions (that define it as about a movement for equality)," it is unclear whether you are referring to my position, or the position of the sources that I bring. If you are referring to me, note that I am not arguing against these sources, I am presenting others' arguments and arguing that their arguments suggest non-fringe disagreement, forcing us to treat the view as a view and attribute it. If you are referring to the sources, note that your view on whether the position of the sources is untenable isn't really relevant to this discussion. This also applies to "you are challenging the dictionary defs." Indeed these authors I present appear to be doing just that.
I am not asking we "stress" non-majority opinion, I am asking we present what you call the mainstream view as a view in the lead. This can be done trivially by adding "viewed by most," "viewed by most supporters," "mostly viewed," "usually viewed," etc. or other such language to the presentation of the view in question (a view that is disputed by a non-fringe minority).
Re: "Basically, I think the term "discrimination against women" which is in the lede right now could be better worded as "equality" becuase that's what it means." No, that's only what it means if you first accept that all instances of inequality between men and women anywhere are evidence of discrimination against women in each instance. Many do not hold that belief and thus do not begin with that assumption. I think it's fair to state that an overwhelming majority of people view feminism as generally opposing discrimination against women, thus my edit. I do not believe it fair to state that an overwhelming majority of people view feminism as generally opposing discrimination against men -- which would be implied by stating without attribution that feminism strives for "equality." I believe the sources I bring are strong evidence of this.
Re: "It is a linguistic point but when an idea is for something they are not for the reverse of its negative." Well, that clashes with my understanding of first-order logic. A = Not(Not(A)), in my humble opinion. Your example uses varying language and hence obfuscates this: If you are for having sugar in your tea at a given moment, you are clearly against having no sugar in your tea at that moment. Blackworm (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my brevity here Blackworm but as SLR said that's getting semantic. I'm being grammatical when I talk about double negative being bad for pro- ideas. I'm also reflecting multiple dictionary defs and the majority of mainstream reliably sourced scholarly views. Yes I am aware that these sources challenge the dic def and that's precisely why they are undue for the lede sentence. Please if you don't understand why I'm saying this make a posting at WP:FTN. This: I think it's fair to state that an overwhelming majority of people view feminism as generally opposing discrimination against women, thus my edit. you must prove - becuase anyone can take a dictionary off a shelf and see that the mainstream view is that feminism is about equality - again please go to WP:FTN if you disagree this strongly with using the mainstream and dictionary definitions of feminism for its lede line--Cailil talk 23:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what your first two sentences mean. I am not trying to use the sources I present in the lead; that would indeed be undue weight. I am using them to support my objection to your using the "majority" as universal truth without attribution to the majority, or to feminists, in the lead.
On the contrary, you wish to add this material, thus you must show that is it verified and neutral, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. I do not see how you can do this, in light of non-fringe sources specifically countering the view. If you believe my sources or my arguments here are fringe, I believe the onus is on you to challenge them via WP:FTN. I'm sorry we were not able to agree here; if you continue to wish to include this view without attribution, I invite you to pursue mediation or dispute resolution. Blackworm (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I believe I understand your second sentence refers to. You seem to believe that being "against discrimination against women" is identical to being "for equality." Again, I believe this identity requires as a first principle that all gender inequality discriminates against women in favor of men. For example, if one aspect of gender inequality discriminated against men, then a person could be staunchly "against discrimination against women" without necessarily wishing to address that particular element of gender inequality, or that person may even wish to perpetuate it or further it; in other words, that person would not be "for equality." Your argument also ignores the difference between "equality of opportunity" (which failure to provide would generally be seen as discrimination) and "equality of outcome" (which failure to provide would not generally be seen as discrimination). I hope this makes my point clearer. Blackworm (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm posting to FTN. I've provided sources below and above multiple times - I'm also giving a fairly list of these and the ones already used in feminism that present feminism as a movement for equal rights in that FTN post. It should b up in a matter of minutes. Once again you still have to prove that I think it's fair to state that an overwhelming majority of people view feminism as generally opposing discrimination against women, thus my edit. since as before anyone can take a dictionary off a shelf or go into a libarray and find a book about feminism and see that the mainstream view is that feminism is about equality. BTW My first two lines above are pointing out that your arguments above it were more semantic; however my discussion of the idea that there is a double negative structure in saying that 'feminism is against discrimination' is more of a grammatical argument becuase it is about structure--Cailil talk 00:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you may be misunderstanding the italicized statement as meaning that feminism is not seen by the overwhelming majority as being about equality between the sexes. We dispute the latter; my point is that the above statement isn't credibly disputed. Blackworm (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm, to say that feminism is concerned with gender equality does not mean that "feminism has as its goal to promote the equal rights of men and women." Calil is describing a general interest, which you are reading as a specific political program. That is a big leap. Of course, some feminists fight for equal rights, some do not, and this can be discussed in the body of the article. But even feminists who do not fight for equal rights are concerned about gender difference, women's rights and equality. To be "concerned" about something doesn't ever lead to only one determined political position, it can and usual does lead to a range of positions. For example, in the US there are people who are concerned with racial equality, and some of those people promote affirmative action and some of those people are opposed to affirmative action. Their mutual concern leads to antagonistic policy proposals. Is this so surprising? It happens all the time! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
First, I appreciate the time you're taking to explain your position. You say C is describing a "general" interest with the words "concerned with," and I would agree if the qualifier "generally" appeared in the text. Without it, we can only assume "universally concerned with/interested in equality." It is disputed that that is what feminism is. Cailil quotes many sources indicating equality, and I wouldn't dispute that much or even most mainstream sources and feminist sources describe it thusly. However, the word feminism also has the meaning: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests[15], which is a definition that doesn't sound as egalitarian and doesn't appear here. Inclusion of both meanings would address my objection. I have no problem with incorporating many views (or meanings) of what feminism is; I do have a problem with picking one meaning apparently most favored by feminists, implying that it applies universally, and not presenting any others. So how about this suggestion: Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies generally concerned with gender difference, gender inequality, women's rights, and women's interests. No fringe ideas in there, and a more complete definition, IMO. Blackworm (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


(undent) I'm also recording what the sources express. Yes, only the mainstream ones but that's what we do for lede sentences of articles - we use the commonly accepted definition of a subject - we don't qualify it becuase there are fringe theories and the sources provided do not show substantive debate about how to define feminism. (Let me digress here for a second and say that even Christian Hoff Sommers, some call her an anti-feminist BTW, charts the history of feminism about being a movement for equal rights - she does criticize some modern feminists but then lauds those who are part of equity feminism)

Taking another article lead as an example we can see from Communism that it does not have qualifications / attribution and reads: "Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production." It is written as such even though there are many who criticize every aspect of that definition. But that definition is still how communism is commonly defined (and is pretty close to dictionary definitions BTW).

Blackworm, I think SLR has expressed it quite well. An argument against using the common/mainstream reliably sourced/dictionary definitions is very very tenuous. I have shown policy. I have shown references. I have shown WP style guides. All of which run contrary to giving undue weight in the lede, and yes, qualification of a generally accepted definition does give undue weight to those who dispute it.

So before I get talked to death I'm moving to close with the former suggestion:

Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender difference and with women's rights and equality.

We have are bound by wikipedia policy to write articles that are reliably sourced and give only due weight to fringe ideas. We must also reflect accurately how subjects are defined in these sources. Not having the term equality in the lede line of this article breaks this principle. If you read the sources below you will find no qualifiers in the definition and all of them stressing "equality for women". If you read other Wikipedia Featured Articles you will find only mainstream definitions used (even in contested subjects). Now, I'm going to ask an editor who has copy-edited this page a number of times to review my suggestion.

This is a copy of the list of sources I left at FTN one can also check via google scholar and google books for "feminism equal rights" or "feminism equality" to test my contention that this is the mainstream.

The reason that I'm moving to close all of this is because it was a)started by a troll/bad-faith editor, SorsImmanis1, b)there was an attempted hijacked by an anti-abortion IP (69.140.152.55) and c) it is the case that the substantive issue that Blackworm raises is addressed by site policy - we don't reflect fringe/minority theories in the lede. An alternative to SLR and my suggestions is to restore the status quo ante - but I prefer the suggestion above. --Cailil talk 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "moving to close all of this." I'm assuming all of us would like to resolve this as soon as possible. Again, I believe you are confounding "not presenting the minority view in the lead" (possibly valid) with "presenting the majority view as unopposed fact" (not valid, see WP:NPOV). The latter can be addressed with qualifiers ("most," "generally," etc.) and attribution ("seen by most as," etc.). What do you think of my latest suggested edit? Blackworm (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Blackworm two points about your suggestion.
1) I can not understand what your resistance is to the common and standard terminology of "women's rights and equality" rather than "gender inequality, women's rights, and women's interests". I have presented voluminous material to support the former wording - so that suggest that these sources are being ignored, or at least not read. The lede line has to summarizes the sources and reflect the mainstream definitions of the subject.
2) To be absolutely clear we do not reflect fringe/minority theory in the lede line in any way (WP:FT) - we do that in the body of th lead if it is due. Evolution's definition is not qualified even though it is contested by some. So as I have said adding any qualification of the dictionary/mainstream definition gives undue weight to those who contest that definition. I know "generally concerned with" can have other meanings but as is 100% clear you are asking that that word is inserted because the definition is contested by a minority.
The fact that there is an ambiguous aspect to "generally" is a serious problem - lede lines should not be ambiguous. The suggestion I gave above is more concise, is without the ambiguity of teh word "general", and it reflects the sources. That said I would happy to alter my suggestion to say "gender difference and equal rights for women' rather than "gender difference and with women's rights and equality" if you still have a problem with "equality" as a stand alone term--Cailil talk 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note on your reference to the Webster dictionary: which also and primarily (hence the number 1) defines feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" - my suggestion actually incorporates both Webster definitions (women's rights and equality). And BTW you are discussing the subject when you say: "I do have a problem with picking one meaning apparently most favored by feminists, implying that it applies universally, and not presenting any others."--Cailil talk 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't "primarily" define it as such -- the ordering of numbered senses in a dictionary is dictated by the order in which the new senses came into use, not the prevalence of the meanings. Sense (2) is a more recent meaning. The second sense shows that feminism doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with equality -- someone who advances solely women's interests in total opposition to gender equality can still be a feminist (as the sources I bring, including Webster's, confirm). Your suggestion implies that all feminism must be concerned with equality, rather than concerned with equality and/or concerned with advancing women's interests. This contradicts the dictionary and other reliable sources, hence my opposition. Your sources indeed show that feminism is about equality. Mine show that it is not about equality. I recognize your sources as valid. Please recognize mine as valid. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


  • It's not about validity - it's about due weight. I'm being bold and I'm making this edit:

Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and philosophies concerned with issues of gender difference, advocating equality for women, and campaigning of women's rights and interests. Feminism comprises a number of different movements, theories and philosophies that are concerned with issues of gender difference, that advocate equality for women, and that campaign for women's rights and interests.[22][23][24][15]

If any one objects please raise them in a new thread. Also I suggest we can add due material about differences of opinion within feminism and/or about feminism in the following paragraph--Cailil talk 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A post-script: Blackworm I am not attempting to suggest "that all feminism must be concerned with equality" - I am working from and reflecting the majority definition - the general definition - of the term feminism. Now, if this is your position: "Cailil quotes many sources indicating equality, and I wouldn't dispute that much or even most mainstream sources and feminist sources describe it thusly." Then this discussion is resolved because as pointed out, the lede is only for what the majority of mainstream sources define Feminism as. WP:DUE binds us to that, and Arbcom rulings have been explicit in this regard. I also think my edit actually addresses the points you raise but it also a)reflects mainstream sources, b)only gives due weight and c)incorporates both Webster definitions--Cailil talk 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That edit seems fine to me, Cailil. Thanks to you and Slrubenstein for addressing my concerns. Blackworm (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: SorsImmanis1 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely as a troll/sock/pushing fringe theories/generally being detrimental to the project.-Wafulz (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph (section break #3)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caleil, if you read my original posts carefully you will understand the reason for the tagging which has been removed despite the provision of a reason. To help clarify further I have accentuated words from my third post that was an attempt to make this clearer for you as requested when you wrote "If no rationale for the tagging is given they will be removed."
"your link to WP:LEAD that it states "It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." which supplies the reason you have requested as to why the article has been tagged.
Also note that the extracts I provided you with are verifiable.
With all due respect Slrubenstein I have to ask where I can verify the statement "I think that "equal rights for women" is at least in the US and UK the most common understanding of feminism." that you provide is more than personal thought.
Additionally you can find that the NPOV tutorial has good information with respect to WP:NPOV tutorial#Moral and political points of view. I suspect we would all agree that Feminism is significantly more in the realm of ethics and politics than science as attested to by the classification of degrees in the subject. Consequently, and I quote:
"We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them."
WP:NPOV tutorial#Expertise continues to provide advice on how to measure this importance and concludes with the following:
Points of view held as having little credibility by experts, but with wide popular appeal, should be reported as such. That is, we should expose the point of view and its popular appeal, but also the opinion held by the vast majority of experts. An example is the belief in astrology, considered irrational and incorrect by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers.
Here you can see that is not only important to represent the views of those considered as academics but also significantly widespread views of the population outwith this group . It appears clear that if indeed we are to use the term "equal rights" it should be attributed specifically to feminist researchers.
SorsImmanis1 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
SorsImmanis1 despite your continual reference to your first post you have not given a policy-based rationale for your tagging. You have not shown how it violates NPOV becuase you have not provided sources showing another POV. You have not shown that it is OR becuase it is veriable and as it is the lede sentence it was verified in the article. I told you that if you do not / can not provide a rationale they would be removed.
Secondly you must prove what you want to add. That feminism is a movement toward equal rights for women and or equality of the sexes is not disputable - because it can be sourced to a whole library of work on feminist history. Yes we can attribute it but we'd have to list hundreds of names of feminists, sociologists, historians, activists etc. Attribution (that is saying: "Maggie Humm's book Modern Feminisms: Political, Literary, Cultural says that feminism is a term for"the politics of equal rights for women"[25], rather than simply adding citations) is required when the view is unique - but attribution is almost impossible when one needs to attribute to hundreds of scholars and and as site policy states "not everything has to be attributed" (see WP:ATT) - that isn't to say that I'm against referencing it I just think it is wildly unnecessary and inaccurate to say that 'X says feminism is about equal rights" when this in fact a view held by the majority of scholars and published in the majority of work about feminism.
Wikipedia articles do not need to give equal or prominent weight to fringe ideas - in fact fringe ideas may not even need to be included in the article - NPOV states this. Highlight fringe and unsourced "popular opinion" is not NPOV.
There is also the matter of the subtle inaccuracy of saying that feminism is about "more rights for Women" because in the English language that infers "more than" rather than "increase" - the POV that feminism is about female superioity is a disputed and politically driven POV. It is one held by fringe theorists (many of them Antifeminist) - fringe because it is not widely accepted as a definition of feminism or as an accurate portrayal of the history of feminism. Exceptional sources would be required for this idea to be included here as per WP:V.
Now, I would like you to answer my direct question on whether you had read the sources you quoted above or just their abstracts--Cailil talk 10:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Cailil, with regards to the WP:NPOV policy I will reiterate to you that "There is no consensus that feminism is concerned with gender equalities and a large proportion of the population would also question that it is concerned with equal rights." For you to be able to say that there is a consensus that feminism is concerned with equal rights you will have to prove it. If you prove it is the consensus amongst feminist researchers then it would be acceptable for you to attribute it as such. However if you wish to state that it is the consensus amongst the general population then you must prove this. I feel that asking me to repeat myself is not constructive to improving the quality of this article.
In answer to your specific question on abstracts I have looked at a mixture of abstracts and body text which you would have known if you had read the body of these papers and found the text that I provided to you. However, as a side note I cannot see what relevance this could possibly have. Are you saying that the abstract provided by the authors of each of these papers is not a representative summary of what they have written?
In going forward to improve the article I would like to see sources to back up your claim of general consensus that:
"feminism is a movement toward equal rights for women and or equality of the sexes is not disputable"
You have to consider that for this political and ethical issue you should either prove this is the consensus amongst the general population or specifically attribute this to the smaller population of feminist researchers.
SorsImmanis1 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(out dent) First SorsImmanis1 you claim there is no consensus about feminism being about equal rights - you have shown nothing to support this. I have shown you not only 7 sources here on this talk page but I have pointed you to the references on the article page and I explained that you have misinterpreted the sources you listed - all of which deal with deal with issues of equality and equal rights. In the case of Fereshteh Ahmadi's article it is either being misinterpreted or utterly misrepresented by your above post's selective quotation. If you have access to the article you should read pages 35-50 which place and emphasis on "equality." Misrepresentation of sources is serious.
Secondly you seem to totally misunderstand the term consensus on wikipedia. I am not referring to a vox-populi of "the general population" (but if I was to point to a common sense definition of feminism I'd really recommend you look at a dictionary definition of feminism - my Collins edition reads: "feminism a doctrine or movement advocating equal rights for women") By consensus I am referring to two things 1) a former (as there is a new one forming above) consensus of editors on wikipedia as is seen in the archives and 2) the mainstream view of scholars - and whether you approve of it or not article are written mostly from the mainstream scholarly sources - we don't record what Joe Q Public thinks is the theory of relativity we record what has been published in reliable sources about the theory of relativity--Cailil talk 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC) BTW other dictionary definitions are quite close to my Collins one. The Cambridge UP dictionary says" feminism:the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state:"[17]. The Dictionary.com one is "Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men" or from reference.com "feminism, movement for the political, social, and educational equality of women with men;" So all of these continual accusations that it is somehow "Cailil's opinion" that feminism is about equal rights for women is either being made without knowledge of how feminism is actually defined or is being made as an accusation of bad faith on my part. If indeed it is the latter then I recommend a sysop be asked to review this immediately--Cailil talk 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness SorsImmanis1 is not editing the Evolution article - if her understanding of consensus and verifiability were the actual policies at Wikipedia, the Evolution article would read like this: "Evolution is based on the belief in Satin. Some people believe in microevolution, which is what happened when dinosaurs ate cavemen." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's face it, Calil, you have been used. SorsImmanis1 is a single-user account, who has never made a positive contribution to an article, who does not understand our policies, and who has come to Wikipedia and who has created an account only to disrupt the feminism article. Just ignore her. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Not only that SLR but they are conducting a mini campaign against me. I have strong reasons to believe that they are the IP user who posted this to RSN[18] and this to my talk space[19] and we all can see that they are indeed the person who posted this[20] to my talk space. If their behaviour continues in this fashion it'll be time to DNFTT.
BTW did you catch my suggestion to reword teh lede sentence above[21] ?--Cailil talk
I'm sorry but however you want to avoid reasoned discussion is of no concern of mine. If you wish to include that the general consensus outwith the realm of feminist researchers is the general consensus of the population rather than feminist researchers then the burdon of proving this is on you as per WP:prove and WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I would ask both Slrubenstein and Cailil to desist in making personal attacks (WP:No_personal_attacks) and I will have to report this as both of your slanderous statements blatently contravene wikipedia policy.
SorsImmanis1 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Who are you going to report us to? your mommy and daddy? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This is my last reply to you SorsImmanis1 considering your tendentious refusal to address the sources provided (especially the dictionary defs) and your misrepresentation of the sources in your earlier posts. A sysop has been notified of your continued pushing here and of the fact that you are the same editor who has engaged in a harassment campaign against me on my talk page and on WP:RSN. Tendentious editing is considered disruptive and this thread will be reported for review to sysops in that regard after the fact that the SorsImmanus1 account was created to block evade is itself reviewed by the blocking sysop--Cailil talk 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you believe I am engaged in a harrassment campaign against you. I find this accusation quite insulting as I have acted with civility unlike yourself who is now making baseless accusations and misquoting me e.g. suggesting I continually labelled something as "Cailel's opinion" several entries earlier, when I have never said that. I also see someone else has posted a message on your talk page asking you to stop trolling.
SorsImmanis1 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening sentence resolution

Cailil has asked me to try and help resolve the issue of the opening sentence. To try and clarify what is at stake here, I have listed the current sentence below:

"Feminism comprises a number of movements, theories and philosophies that are concerned with issues of gender difference, that advocate equality for women, and that campaign for women's rights and interests."

Anyone who would like to see a change, please list your version and a succinct explanation for your changes. Hopefully by seeing all of the versions side-by-side with their reasoning, we can start to see some commonalities in wording and reasoning. I know we all want this article to be well-written and accurate, so let's work together to make it so. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is now resolved, since I accepted Cailil's latest suggestion (the current sentence above), as I noted here. I still cringe when I read "equality for women" (i.e., it reminds me of Animal Farm), but that is indeed the language often used. Blackworm (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me, too Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this is excellent! I've stumbled into a consensus! Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Women of colour feminism more notable than black feminism?

Iamcuriousblue I see you've made a number of the good changes tonight but you've also made one that is a bit inaccurate. You need to prove that "Women of colour feminism" is more a more notable name for the same subject than "Black feminism", becuase I can prove otherwise. Notable works of black feminism are Black Feminist Thought: by Patricia Hill Collins, Blues Legacies and Black Feminism by Angela Davis, AlterNatives: Black Feminism in the Postimperial Nation by Ranu Samantrai. There's also the fact that it is categorized as Black feminism in Lisa Anderson's book on black feminism in contemporary drama, in Cynthia Burack's Healing identities, Lorde's collection Sister Outsider, Wall's Changing Our Own Words and King's Theory in Its Feminist Travels. We can keep going with this list...

The only things I can find on Women of Colour feminism is The Ruptures of American Capital[22] and Colonize This! by Daisy Hernandez

What I'm going to suggest is this. Re-title the section as Black feminism. Then add a note at the top saying it is related to "Women of Colour feminism" and then at the bottom of the section mention the links Women of Colour feminism has to Xicana and Native American feminism which can be dealt with in another section (perhaps Multiracial feminism). Otherwise you are going to have to totally rewrite the whole of that section becuase its current sourcing only addresses Black feminism and linking Women of Colour feminism (without a source) to Patricia Hill Collins' Defining Black Feminist Thought is original research. I'm also going to point out that multiracial feminism and Black feminism are very different subjects. Black feminism is much older (going back to teh 60s or 70s) and Women of colour feminism dates from the 1990s. These are distinct terms & Black feminism is notable enough for a section all of its own.--Cailil talk 22:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your judgment call on this is good, but I think the label should definitely lean toward the more inclusive – obviously, there are many feminists that are coming from the roughly the same perspective of the intersectionality of race and gender, and many of these feminists are not "black". The term "Women of Color feminists" (or "WOC feminists" for short) is the term I hear most often, at least in the blogosphere, but obviously, Wikipedia needs to be based more on established, published sources. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think in this case it is better to adhere to our core policies. If most scholars talk about Black Feminism, it is incumbant on us to say that they do and provide an account of what they mean. If there are some notable scholars or activists who in fact argue for a "Women of Color Feminism" we should say so too, and explain what they mean (whether it includes or is somewhat different from Black Feminism). But we should not put our own views into the article (even if the three of us were in agreement). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think its important to look at recent literature, because I do think there are other terms in use. In any event, I'm sure there must be an umbrella term for Black/Multiracial/Chicana/etc feminism that is based on an intersectionality perspective. In the meantime, perhaps use as a section title "Black feminism/Women of Color feminism" or "Black feminism and related feminisms" or something like that. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just another small point, as regards the sub-sections of Radical feminism I think we can probably do each of these subjects (and the over all category of radical feminism) justice without having so many sub-sections. We could address all of these sub-forms of the radical movement in paragraphs within a single section. BTW I've made a suggested change as regards the above discussion of Black feminism--Cailil talk 12:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-porn feminism can probably be merged in readily, since the overwhelming majority of contemporary radical feminism is strongly oriented toward an anti-porn perspective. Separatism and cultural feminism are part of radical feminism overall, but based on what I've read, they remain distinct types, and are not universally subscribed to by all radical feminists. In fact, I belive Dworkin had differences with separatists and MacKinnon is on record as disparaging cultural feminism. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a casual usage of the term radical feminist in North America that is not reflected elsewhere or in the majority of the literature. Your point about the difference Dworkin and MacKinnon had with other groups is correct. But radical feminism is quite broadly defined. Some scholars even include sex-positive feminism within it. I know that Echols's certainly defines Cultural feminism as evolving from radical feminism but as becoming distinct; and certainly Mary Daly's Gyn/Ecology is subtitled "a metaethics of radical feminism" and is one of the corner stones of separatist feminism. Even if these sub-movements have moved away from radical feminism their history is a part of the history of radical feminism. That said we can write the section so that it is clear that these subtypes "are not universally subscribed to" and to indicate that they have become distinct--Cailil talk 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have one further point on this. I think we should merge Multiracial feminism here until the section is long enough as a sourced piece for its own article. I have just stubbified that article in order to remove a lot of OR and to clean it up per the manual of style so I'd like a second and third opinion on merger--Cailil talk 13:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect performed. When there is sufficient sourced information here we can port it back out to its own page--Cailil talk 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This article cannot decree that women have the rights feminists are demanding. WP:NPOV

Cailil, I believe this edit of yours misses the point I believe BunnyScoop was making, that is, that we cannot indirectly assert without qualifier nor attribution that women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion. The other rights mentioned are questionable without attribution, but that one in particular is quite hotly debated. Consider, for example, a hypothetical sentence in Wikipedia: "A group of men are concerned with issues such as men's right to renounce the responsibilities of parenthood." A group of men do believe this is a right, but that doesn't make the sentence neutral. Now, how can we rewrite the article paragraph here to ensure that it is clear that feminists believe women have these rights, and that the belief is not Wikipedia's? Blackworm (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BunnyScoop's edit rewrites what Echol's and Cornell books say and drastically misrepresents them. You will not find BunnyScoop's wording anywhere in these books. Sources cannot be misrepresented - such misinterpretation is very serious and is now being dealt with directly by ArbCom.
The edit in question is not in fact a NPOV issue it is a WP:NOR issue - BunnyScoop created a novel interpretation of Echol's book that is in fact a misinterpretation. I also have to point out that as good as it is your explanation of BunnyScoop's edit is your own, since BunnyScoop gave no edit summary[23].
The arguments that have been put forward (I am speaking about other editors rather than yourself) for alteration of this line to remove "rights" miss the point a) of the source b) of site policy (WP:V) and c) of what is actually written. The article does not advocate abortion. It does not claim abortion is a right. It does however reflect the fact that feminists have campaigned for abortion-rights (sometimes left unhyphenated).
The wording said:

Feminist political activists have been concerned with [...] a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to choose whether to have an abortion access to contraception and quality prenatal care)

It would be preferable if it was clearer that feminists have campaigned for these ideas so I've suggested this:

Feminist activists have campaigned for women's rights of contract and property, to bodily integrity and autonomy, (including reproductive rights, abortion rights, access to contraception and for quality prenatal care)

The issue of attribution is dead Blackworm, as per WP:FT. Unless exceptional sources can be found to contradict the mainstream reliable sources, which say feminists campaign(ed) for abortion rights, wikipedia does not qualify in the lede what is reflected in the vast majority of sources. That violates WP:UNDUE (and therefore WP:NPOV) - if you want to please ask for further clarification at WP:FTN, or WP:NPOVN.
I will also say this for anyone wishing to join this conversation this is not a forum for discussion of the subject of abortion or of "abortion rights". Site policy (see WP:TALK) states that only discussion based on article appropriate (see WP:NOR) mainstream reliable sources (see WP:RS), about how to improve the article is acceptable use of the talk pages--Cailil talk 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Attribution is dead per WP:FT? Did you intend to cite that? Your edit is better, as it now attributes more of the view, per WP:V. It is almost there, in my opinion. I will edit it to address the apparent lack of attribution of the implied view that a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy includes the right to abortion. Blackworm (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited it to read: Feminist activists have campaigned for women's rights of contract and property; for the right to bodily integrity and autonomy (which they view as including reproductive rights, abortion rights, and the right to access to contraception and quality prenatal care); [...]. Blackworm (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry FT as in Fringe theory (WP:FTN goes to the noticeboard, WP:FRINGE goes to the policy). In short there need to be sources - exceptional ones - found for this Blackworm. You see mainstream reliable sources state abortion-rights and reproductive rights as rights of bodily integrity (I'm referring first to the two cited and then many others) what mainstream reliable sources claim otherwise? Even then can your edit be justified under WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV)? And after that does it reflect the sources which it already cites?--Cailil talk 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is trivially shown that opposition to abortion is also often founded in a belief in a right to bodily integrity and autonomy (i.e. that of the unborn child). If you disagree, I will cite source. It also seems readily apparent to me that one can express belief in the right to bodily integrity and autonomy while specifically denying that the right to have an abortion exists. This is also echoed by sources: "Anti-abortionists claim that the right of the fetus not to be killed overrides the right of a woman to bodily integrity."[24] Your phrasing implies that any right to bodily integrity and autonomy automatically, by definition, includes the right to have an abortion. Some people believe that, others don't; thus the view must be attributed. "Suppose a pro-choicer and a pro-lifer got together and realized their differences came down to the question of whether the woman's right to bodily integrity trumped the fetus's right to the potentiality of life or not."[25] Blackworm (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Blackworm first this is discussion of subject not the sources cited. Secondly WP:Undue and WP:V cover this (fringe theory about what feminism campaigns for is not put into the lede). Thirdly novel interpretation of sources is OR (the wording previously used is the wording the sources use). It would be preferable if people find parenthetical clauses this confusing to alter the parenthesis in order to remove the confusion. So I've suggested:

Feminist activists have campaigned for women's legal rights (rights of contract and property, voting rights); for rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape;[10][1] for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination

--Cailil talk 12:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a discussion of the subject, it's a discussion aimed at helping you, as a Wikipedian encyclopedist, understand the difference between an undisputed fact (e.g., that feminists generally view abortion as a woman's right) and a disputed view (e.g., that abortion is part of a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy). This kind of discussion is essential when WP:V issues, specifically issues of missing attribution of views, are raised. We clearly have very different views about how the WP:V policy applies here, but ultimately it's moot, since your latest edit addresses the policy issue I raised. We seem to have consensus. It was a pleasure working with you. Blackworm (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Patricia Hill Collins, 'Defining Black Feminist Thought' in Philomena Essed, David Theo Goldberg eds., Philomena Essed, David Theo Goldberg (London: Blackwell publishing Ltd., 2002) p. 174
  2. ^ Bell Hooks, Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism (London: South End Press, 1999)
  3. ^ Heidi Safia Mirza, ed., Black British Feminism: A Reader (London: Routledge, 1999)
  4. ^ Elizabeth A. Grosz Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Allen & Unwin, 1989)
  5. ^ Warnock Fernea, Elizabeth, In Search of Islamic Feminism, (1998)
  6. ^ Ali Hussain al-Hakim, Islam and Feminism: Theory, Modelling and Applications (2005)
  7. ^ Haideh Moghissi, Feminism and Islamic fundamentalism : the limits of postmodern analysis (1999)
  8. ^ Amina Wadud, Inside the gender Jihad : women's reform in Islam (2006)
  9. ^ DuBois, Ellen Carol (1999). Feminism and suffrage: the emergence of an independent women's movement in America, 1848-1869. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8641-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ Smith, Harold Eugene (1990). British feminism in the twentieth century. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-87023-705-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  11. ^ Whitney, Sharon (1984). The equal rights amendment: the history and the movement. New York: F. Watts. ISBN 0-531-04768-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  12. ^ Voet, Maria Christine Bernadetta (1998). Feminism and citizenship. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5860-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  13. ^ Buechler, Steven M. (1990). Women's movements in the United States: woman suffrage, equal rights, and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-1558-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ Chapman, Jenny L. (1993). Politics, feminism, and the reformation of gender. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01698-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  15. ^ a b Humm, Maggie Humm, Maggie (1992). Modern feminisms: political, literary, cultural. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08072-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ DuBois, Ellen Carol (1999). Feminism and suffrage: the emergence of an independent women's movement in America, 1848-1869. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8641-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  17. ^ Smith, Harold Eugene (1990). British feminism in the twentieth century. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-87023-705-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  18. ^ Whitney, Sharon (1984). The equal rights amendment: the history and the movement. New York: F. Watts. ISBN 0-531-04768-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  19. ^ Voet, Maria Christine Bernadetta (1998). Feminism and citizenship. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5860-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  20. ^ Buechler, Steven M. (1990). Women's movements in the United States: woman suffrage, equal rights, and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-1558-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  21. ^ Chapman, Jenny L. (1993). Politics, feminism, and the reformation of gender. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01698-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cornell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Humm, Maggie (1992). Modern feminisms: political, literary, cultural. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08072-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  24. ^ Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus. London: Collins. 2006. ISBN 0-00-722405-2. {{cite book}}: Text "autho" ignored (help)
  25. ^ Humm, Maggie (1992). Modern feminisms: political, literary, cultural. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08072-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism/Archive_11&oldid=1140129137"