Talk:Naomi Wolf/Archive 1

Subjective Piece

I have never commented on an artcile before but have been moved to do so by the extremely subjective tone in this piece - it seems to set out to make Wolf look ridiculous and her work as having been derided by the majority of thinkers and reviewers, which was simply not the case. A substantial rewrite is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.56.223 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not able to find one positive comment in this whole biography. Someone must have been very busy putting all the bad reviews only. There must be at least one reviewer who actually thought her thoughts are worthwhile. Only comes to support a bit what she proposes. decaalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decaalv (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC) at

Well, when you claim that 33,000 women die every year from anorexia, but in fact it's less than 100, that's pretty ridiculous, don't you think so? It's very easy to prove your point when you fabricate your own numbers. American In Brazil (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

To Add to the previous comments, Naomi is presently deeply into irrational conspiracy theory belief, at present raving online on twitter and facebook about NYC being "sprayed" by supposed secret govt "chemtrail" programs claiming overcast skies never occurred in the past because she doesn't remember them, claims natural cirrus ripples and undulatus clouds are caused by haarp and 5G emf transmissions, insisting that meteorologists worldwide are in cahoots and scientists and pilots are all complicit in a vast conspiracy to poison or geoengineer the skies and population. Numerous pilots, scientists or meteorologists who write to her on twitter to try to calmly explain verifiable science are rapidly blocked and historic photographs and science journal documents contradicting her assertions tagged as Spam. Do her public writings on the topic of well understood natural cloud formations and aircraft contrails look ridiculous and do meteorologists, aviation experts and scientists consider her online "work" nonsensical? Yes. Is it the fault of pilots scientists and meteorologists? NO. When a famous writer devotes their time online to generating volumes of delusional nonsensical conspiracy nonsense and proselytising such beliefs the wikipedia article does not need rewriting to gloss over these failings of reason and research abilities and the writers compulsion to assert misinformed beliefs to others, it needs to focus on them GregOrca (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This article comes off as very subjective to me. It's loaded with more criticism of Wolf than of her own positions and cites no responses by her to the criticism presented. Just an observers POV, who came to learn more about someone they'd heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.214.235 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I attempted to make the final paragraph in this article neutral by changing "gone off her rocker" with "involved with scandal." However, I know very little about this controversy so am unable to tell if the facts presented are correct and neutral. Sdoles

I made a lot of changes to make this article NPOV and factual, mostly changing the discussion of the "earth tones" and "alpha male" flaps, including removing a quote incorrectly sourced to Time magazine. I think this article is NPOV now, let me know if you disagree. protohiro 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protohiro: Were your changes reverted? From my reading of the section Political Consultants I get the distinct impression that it's loaded with weasel words and phrases. Though Time Magazine is mentioned ("Wolf [was] paid a salary of $15,000 a month…in exchange for advice on everything from how to win the women’s vote to shirt-and-tie combinations.") the article is not referenced nor does the quotation parenthesized above have a link. e.g. the quote is unsourced. Indeed the only reference on this section comes from a single apparently biased source. The tone of the section would be greatly improved by removing POV heavy language and catch phrases. I do not want to throw a POV tag, but would appreciate a neutral set of eyes on this section. BingoDingo (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, you left in " In recent years her journalistic credibility has been questioned." and think it is now NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.242.39 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Before outright dismissing for the sake of "neutrality" the claim that she has "gone off her rocker", please familiarise yourself with her facebook and twitter accounts and her assertions that airline condensation trails she observes overhead were never visible over NewYork in the past and are really clouds of poisonous metals spread by the govt with the possible intent to bring about some form of genocide or mind control. Sorry but it is evident from her own voluminous conspiracy theory writings online that her grasp of scientific reality is rather tenuous.GregOrca (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Books...

I think it is best to just list the books in chronological order and focus on general themes of the career. If certain books have some notability beyond their content (special controversy, etc.) then that might deserve a mention. -- 71.156.102.142 07:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Paglia

I don't like Camille Paglia and her work in the least, but the reference to her first book as "pseudo scholar" -- whether true or not -- and her lecture at MIT as "infamous" violates the attempt by Wikipedia to offer the most neutral point of view possible. Wikipedia is no place for propaganda or polemics.

I fully agree with the preceding paragraph. Pagli’s spiel should not have a place here. I just read an article by Naomi Wolf, and such saying as “ccannot write a coherent paragraph” or “cannot do historical analysis” is just untrue rhetoric to badly make a point.

Anorexia numbers

Hi, I am wondering whether the number for anorexia victims must not be confirmed by a independent third party source (neither Wolf or Summers) in order for it to be a NOPV to state that the actual number is closer 100?

Until then I think it is enough to say that wolf's account has been challenged.

best regards [Unknown writer]

//There occured a mistake in that article section: in the quote from Baumgardner we read the words "...estimate of than 100...". It was not clear to me what precisely the sentence should look like ( I am not a native speaker of English), perhaps "more/not more/less" or wahtever is to be added, or is it more than just one word missing ?

Regards147.142.186.54 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WOW....First of all the 150,000 number doesn't need any "third party source" to be dismissed. I'd also like to see any evidence that anyone prior to Wolf had used this fabrication. Just curious.

SPCGuru 24-Mar-08

Picture!

I think this article would look a lot nicer with a picture, and would help demonstrate that she is one of the younger feminists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.96.12 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC) e

Her date of birth tells her age (duh). American In Brazil (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --TNKS to the editor who put the very-nice picture in. -- AstroU (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Current picture

I am just wondering if the current picture is allowed, considering it looks like a model shot. Damn though, only hot feminist I ever saw :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elakhna (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Beauty Myth. American In Brazil (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You just nailed it/ Aimee Semple McPherson?

In reply to the comment above, you just found the key to Naomi Wolf's career. Pop culture demands one beautiful feminist with good hair. Gloria Steinem held the job for over thirty years, and when she got old, Naomi Wolf replaced her. Wolf held the chair for about ten years; now Naomi Klein has replaced her. (I wonder how many casual readers think that Naomi Klein is Naomi Wolf? I did for a year.) All three were lightweights who said pretty much what you could hear in any grad student bar-- but what great hair! Isn't it true that you can guess their position on any topic without reading the essay? Corporations? Obama? SUVs? Designer handbags? Palestinians vs Israelis? Islam? Indians? Immigration? --See? What oft was thought and often better expressed, remixed with the kind of puritan guilt trips-- the modern form of the hellfire sermon-- that Americans feel better for listening to, though they don't reform. I wonder if their true American ancestor isn't the beautiful Aimee Semple McPherson? Americans have historically liked to get scolded and "saved" by a beautiful woman now and then. Profhum (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Who does her hair? I think it's relevant. American In Brazil (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that she wrote "End of America", I wonder if she's watched Babylon 5

Wait wait, hear me out! A major plot thread for most of the later seasons involved the establishment of a dictatorship, and the characters reaction to it. I would have liked to ask her how well the fictional version fits the 10 steps. Included are use of propaganda and complete control of the media, and the setting up of a secret police (Nightwatch). --Athcnv (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

She wrote an article in, I think, the Huffington post where she claimed the government was tapping into here bank accounts. Part of the oncoming police state, which is being engineered by Rove and Cheney. Why it's Rove and Cheney, one who is no longer in politics and the other who wont be in a few months, don't ask me. I also don't know why this same paranoia didn't apply to the Clinton administration, like the "anti-terrorism effective death-penalty act" and rocketing the pharmacutical plant in Sudan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the 2008 Election Results made her look like a fool. If her book was true....then there would not have been a 2008 Election and bush would still be president, right? Whippletheduck (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the paranoid fantasies she espouses were true, she'd have long since been arrested; her books would not be published; the websites and radio shows she so frequently appears on would have all been silenced; and her friends and colleagues would be out of circulation too. I'll never understand the blindness of true believers, leftwing or rightwing.222.230.128.108 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)DAS

Question - Was this book paranoid feminism or feminine paranoia? American In Brazil (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

I have removed the prolix non-sequiturs from the criticism section. Sommer's criticism is now made, and then most of the remaining text is devoted to rebutting Sommer's criticism.

The quote from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Eating Disorders Foundation do not actually address the dispute (the number of deaths per year). The latter refers to the number of women afflicted by the disease. Sommers did not address this matter. The former seems to say that those individuals with anorexia are ten times more likely to die than individuals without anorexia. Again, Sommers did not address this matter.

--Tom Joudrey (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for removing all those messy comments she made on the 3rd Brigade and that Crazy Coup stuff that I have many times heard her talk of --- good that you took all the references to this subject out of the Fort Stewart article also . Keep up the good work . What credibility could possibly be attached to a video clearly showing her stating her fears and opinions about these subjects in a documented public forum . Jimologist (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Nowhere in this source [1] does it talk about Wolf "reveling in her rolls of fat, her rotund chunkiness, and her corpulent overflowing girth." Whoever added that, thanks for giving fodder to Wolf and her criticisms. This is exactly the type of mean-spirited nonsense she writes about. Uwmad (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're talking about Andrea Dworkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.196.2 (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Many cititations needed or material must be removed

I just went through and took out the worst WP:BLP violations, including dead links. Please read WP:RS on self-published blogs as a No No.

Use of youtube as back up only discussed on these pages: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5

I did leave youtube in in couple places where I think people will be likely to come up with better references. For her religion I took out youtube since it's just one mention in a video and that should be easily found in some WP:RS online reference.

Even if two paragraphs in a row are from same source you must make that clear by using ref name format - see WP:Cite on how to do it if you don't know how.

The BLP DISPUTE tag should stay up til all these issues are dealt with either with proper citing or removal of material. Carol Moore 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Agreed. I also removed the last section (coup in America), as it was sourced entirely to Youtube. Carol Moore 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a number of email posts on that issue, so I think it is true, but if people really want it in, they do need a better source. Carol Moore 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I added the citation for her Jewish identity which a gleaned from listening to her Interview with Alex Jones (see citation in article)...it is a 2 hour interview that has alot of the information this article wishes to have citations for, straight from Wolf herself, but I am not up for listening to it again and doing the work. This is just a heads-up if someone cares. It's a good interview when Alex gives her a chance to talk :) And the download is free (or I can email it to you if you ask me on my talk page) Saudade7 10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically per WP:RS that might be problematic but since you did all that work I won't challenge it absent some obvious contrary info. But it would be better to find an article source for that as the first of two refs. Carol Moore 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

FYI I give a couple more days and most of the unsourced stuff will be removed except a few things which I'll bother to research and ref. It takes as long to look up a ref and put it in as it does to whine about her politics in talk -) Carol Moore 15:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I just went through and added most of the missing citations. I'll cite the remaining soon. Please do not delete any material in the interim.--147.9.54.172 (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is not the only institution that reviews books

Yes, it is relevant that many of her works have been negatively reviewed by the New York Times. But it is misleading and dishonest to not also cite positive reviews from other sources, of which there have been many. If I find time I may do so later, but really, who thought it was ok to leave it this way? Dorzeco (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article contains reviews and reactions from a whole variety of sources including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, New York Press, New York Journal, Slate, New York Magazine, The Observer, The New Republic, Think Tank, People, The Huffington Post, Project Syndicate, Library Journal, and The Los Angeles Times.

Furthermore, The Washington Post published a positive review of the Beauty Myth, which is cited in the article. The New York Times also praised her next book which, again, is included in the article. So both the alleged lack of sources and alleged negativity from NYT seem mistaken.--147.9.54.183 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is far too heavily over-emphasized in this article. It is mentioned first "in the mainstream press" for The Beauty Myth, first for Promiscuities "in general, negative reviews", again in Misconceptions, and yet again in Other Writings! Its only a newspaper! Surely something more academic is appropriate. 124.197.2.243 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Feminist positions: Rape?

This recently-added subsection excerpts Wolf's position regarding the Assange charges.

Is this fairly representative of Wolf's ideas on rape, as articulated in her decades of writing books and commenting as a feminist and public intellectual? My feeling is that this edit likely should be reverted, or perhaps placed elsewhere under a more accurate heading. I also feel it contains too much detail for an encyclopedia article. M.boli (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This section will no doubt generate controversy, discussion, debate, and already has sparked a complete reversal of view. Let me clarify why I believe it is important this section reflect Wolf's position on the Assange sexual allegations accurately. It seems to me that Wolf's primary and central notability is the integration in her work of two themes - feminist causes and progressive politics. The sexual allegations against Assange offer a perfect storm in which these two central themes of Wolf's work collide head-on. Where does she fall ? Fortunately the answer is not left up for interpretation or "original research". We have a video interview by a trusted and reliable source in which she clearly states her position. The section is notable in that it speaks to the primary and central notability of the article's subject. The section is clearly and reliably sourced with a verifiable citation. The section, as currently written, lacks POV. However, I expect there will be repeated attempts at removing the essence of this paragraph so it would be nice if we could resolve any disputes here prior to an edit war. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You would have a stronger case for inclusion if there was some coverage of the interview in other sources. (Have newspapers reported on the interview? Have they deemed it illustrative of Wolf's general views about rape in the way you are suggesting? Have they reported it in the context of Wolf's feminist or progressive politics in the way that you have framed it?) As it stands now, it actually is a violation of our original research policy, as you appear to have written a summary of what happened in the interview based solely on watching the interview. Or have I misunderstood? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph consists primarily of direct copying of democracynow.org's own summary (licensed under a Creative Commons license), slight paraphrasing of their summary, and quotes from the transcript. I do see your point and the paragraph should be reviewed for original research. Also, it occurs to me now that the inclusion of a video timestamp is probably more suited in a citation rather than the text of the section itself. Similar to the page of a book where some quote can be found. I will review and revise and improve and welcome other editors with time and expertise to scrub this. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have two points of disagreement with Doctorfree / Ronald Joe Record.

• I read your paragraph as being quite full of POV, the point of view being that Wolf's stance in this instance is unpersuasive. Your version of this paragraph does not outline Wolf's position, it outlines the objections to Wolf's position and her unpersuasive responses. I happen to agree with this point of view. Reading the transcript of the Amy Goodman show was pretty revealing in this regard. But the other version does a good job of summarizing Wolf's stance, while it was possible for me to read your version and not know that Wolf even had a coherent stance.
• The title is wrong. The radio debate was about Wolf's reaction to one news event, not about her writings on the subject of rape. I agree with your analysis, viz: there was a collision here between several different themes and values, in the context of a very charged event. Anybody can read what they will into how Wolf responded, but I feel it is quite misleading to take that response as representative of her views on rape.

That's my two cents worth. I do not wish to write this paragraph, so if my views get swept aside I cannot complain. I hope you and other editors arrive at a consensus. M.boli (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wolf's position is summarized in the paragraph as "Wolf argues that the alleged victims should have said no, that they consented to having sex with Assange, that the charges are politically motivated and demean the cause of legitimate rape victims." Nothing was added in the other version other than stuff like "again and again" or that Wolf has decades of experience which is redundant information to the reader of this article. Perhaps we can improve the summary of Wolf's position. Did the above sentence summarizing Wolf's position not present a coherent stance ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is in how it's summarized; the problem is in taking her comments about the Assange case and presenting that in the article as her position about rape in general. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Perhaps we can expand this subsection to more completely reflect her position about rape in general. I read one good article in which she champions the notion that the only real effective means of changing societal perception of rape victims and actually reducing the rate of rapes is to enforce more severe penalties for rape. I'm sure there are many more references and position statements that can be found. Alternatively, we could move this particular instance of her views on the Assange case to a section on "Controversy and Criticism" or "Conflict between Feminist Causes and Progressive Politics" or "Something". Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctorfree / Ronald Joe Record: Sorry! Your paragraph does indeed lead off with a summary of Wolf's position. My mistake.

Both Paul Erik and above: My part on this page has been slowly cleaning, mostly fleshing out cites and putting them in templates, but also making sure that the cites and the text fairly match, that the material under a heading pertains to that heading, and stuff like that. My feeling is still that the paragraph as it stands is dangling out-of-context. It is not about Wolf's writings on rape, and she is not a major player in the Assange rape case. If somebody were keeping a blog of dumb things that people say there might be a place for this, but I don't see a spot in a Wolf encyclopedia entry where it belongs. (There are other out of context dangling additions, I am not picking on this as the only example.) M.boli (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. An example of a dangling addition is the reference to her column on the Guantanamo prison. I haven't figured out what to do with that yet. But I am wondering whether, since Wolf is frequently consulted as a public intellectual, something like a bullet list of positions she has taken on topics of the day would be appropriate. M.boli (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Who's afraid of Vagina Wolf? American In Brazil (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Arrested

It appears she's been arrested at OWS. http://twitpic.com/72f43l#. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.223.98 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Charges of bad reporting

A series of recent analyses of her recent articles indicate that her reporting may be suspect in veracity. Naomi Wolf’s ‘Shocking Truths’ on #OWS Crackdowns are False The page has no information on this and little on other criticism of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.172.157 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional followup: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.172.157 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A Wolf in sheep's clothing? American In Brazil (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Under 'Occupy Wall Street' I have added four critical citations. American In Brazil (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

New look at neutrality and citations templates

I did some citation, content-bolstering and minor organizational work today and wonder if the two pretty old templates

{{multiple| {{refimprove|date=November 2011}} {{POV|date=November 2011}} }}

are still appropriate. I know the subject is controversial but citations look good and can handle both complaints. To the extent I've looked at the article I would vote to Remove templates. Any thoughts? Specific areas of work still needed? Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the content appears sourced, most of the sources appear reliable so I think the "refimprove" tag can be removed and replaced with individual {cn} if anyone has concerns. When a NPOV tag is placed as a stand alone rather than a multi-issue tag, it indicates that the POV issue should be discussed on the talk page. I am seeing no obvious issues in the article and none listed on the talk page and so I support the removal. Again if someone has an NPOV problem to address they can re-add the tag and make note of why here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Even at the time the tag was added, I dont see obvious POV issues and the person adding the tag is not giving specifics either [3] -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the cleanup templates. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 10:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Improved. Swliv (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems the best place to raise this point: fn. 59 appears to have been retrieved prior to being written. Can someone please check this out. Accuracy in a WP article is essential (duh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I'm going to change the retrieval year to 2012 on the assumption that it was not retrieved until after it was written. Any objections? American In Brazil (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Ok, so I don't know how to do it. I ain't no geek, but I took logic and my sources tell me that you cannot retrieve a cite before it is posted. Can someone fix. PLEASE. American In Brazil (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Solved. American In Brazil (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wolf not paranoid, says Wolf

• In late December 2012, FBI documents released by a FOIA request from the Partnership for Civil Justice proved Wolf was far from paranoid.[61] The author wrote a piece for The Guardian discussing the findings: ... [62]

Reference 61 just refers to Wolf's article in The Guardian (which is used as reference 62). I'm sorry, but this might seem a little bit odd. --Luri80 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The CNN headline alone establishes no proof of Wolf's earlier claims.

I also note that Naomi Wolf's interpretation of the Dec. 2012 FBI files was itself challenged, including an article in Mother Jones magazine ("What the FBI's Occupy Docs Do—and Don't—Reveal," by Gavin Aronsen, Jan. 7, 2013), quoted here:

"That has provided plenty of fodder for speculation. Take the Guardian's Naomi Wolf, who in November 2011 advanced the unfounded theory that federal officials had coordinated the raids on Occupy encampments across the country with local authorities, and with congressional blessing (a conclusion quickly debunked by Alternet's Joshua Holland). The new FBI documents, Wolf wrote last month, 'show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world' and a 'terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council.'"

"In fact, the DSAC, 'a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector,' is mentioned in just one unredacted document, an unremarkable report compiled by the FBI and DHS about Occupy's West Coast port shutdown plans in December 2011. Most of the other documents are routine FBI memos focusing on the potential for criminal activity during protests, cyberattacks from Anonymous, reports of suspicious mail, and a threat to shoot a police officer allegedly made by Occupy protesters."

AecwriterAECwriter 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowden

Can some-one put in some-thing about her comments on Snowden? 211.225.33.104 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Done JohnValeron (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations vs. Facts

I have changed the title of the section 'Sexual Encroachment' to 'Alleged Sexual Encroachment' because it is very important to distinguish between facts and allegations - and not just in a WP article. Anything less borders on libel, especially with respect to accusations of sexual or criminal activity. Ms. Wolf made this accusation 21 years after the alleged incident supposedly occurred. Whether it happened or not is unknown and unknowable. Citing that she wrote an article about it, and the content of that article, is entirely appropriate because it is part of her body of work. But whether it actually happened, or is merely a figment of her imagination, is impossible to ascertain. American In Brazil (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I have removed a statement from the lede regarding the author's journalistic integrity. This sentence was simply not appropriate for this section of the article. The lede of a Bio is for basic info like dates, and for mentioning those things that make the person notable. The fact that the information is covered in the article is sufficient -- questions about her integrity are in no way related to her notability. Eaglizard (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:LEDE, any prominent controversies that are included in the article must be mentioned in the Lede. Also, the entire body is ideally summarized in the Lede, and since criticism has been included in the article, once the Lede is expanded (per conversation below) the criticism will inevitably be included in some fashion. petrarchan47คุก 03:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Petra - I agree. The fact that there are eight other journalists (and one university professor) who have criticized her journalism certainly constitutes a "prominent" controversy and should be included in an expanded lede. I will review the article again and begin an expansion of the lede and I invite all constructive editors, such as yourself and Eaglizard, to join me. American In Brazil (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Journalistic credibility

I have reinstated in the lede: "In recent years, her journalistic credibility has been questioned" because the credibility of any journalist is a major ethical issue in journalism and in the free market of ideas. Witness the suspension without pay of Brian Williams at NBC News in 2015 and the forced resignation of Jayson Blair at the New York Times in 2003. In the Williams case, he fabricated "news" stories and his participation in them, and in the Blair case he plagiarized and manufactured "quotes" for elements of his stories. These issues are mentioned in the ledes of these individuals because they are matters of professional integrity.

So, too, in the case of Wolf her own journalism colleagues have roundly criticized her for fabricating not only stories, but even statistics to buttress them. For example, she has declared with authority that more than 30,000 women die annually from anorexia when in fact it is less than 100. Wolf's critics have proved that there is little or nothing factual in her claims in recent years and that her "statements of facts" are not facts at all (see Section 6, 'Occupy Wall Street'). This is highly relevant with respect to her journalistic credibility. Her journalism colleagues consider it notable, at a minimum, and therefore the sentence regarding her adherence, or lack thereof, to journalistic ethics (with a link to the section where her credibility has been questioned) should remain in the lede.

Since her journalism colleagues universally consider that her failure to honestly report the facts (and fabricating her own "facts") is notable, why should anyone else doubt that it is not? American In Brazil (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the addition for two reasons: it is lacking references, and the claim needs to be flushed out, with its references, in the body of the article before it is added to the lede. Please see WP:RS and WP:LEDE for more. petrarchan47คุก 07:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

AIB, I appreciate your making your point on the talk page, but I disagree with you. I think Jayson Blair is actually a perfect example of why: in his case, he is notable precisely because his journalistic integrity was questioned (and proved to be lacking). Ms Wolf is notable for many published articles and books, and for other reasons. Questions about her credibility certainly exist, but those questions exist for essentially every person appearing on main-stream media today. Just ask Bill Nye. Since every journalist is subjected to criticism of their journalistic integrity, the fact that any given journalist gets questioned is rather unimportant -- except in cases like Blair's, where it becomes more or less the only thing they are known for. Eaglizard (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I also appreciate the comments of Petra and Eag on this Talk page. With regard to Petra's comment that this lede sentence "is lacking references", there are no less than 10 inline citations in the article (fn. 64 and 66-74) criticizing Wolf's journalistic honesty and professionalism. The lede sentence that you deleted references these with a link to the section ('Occupy Wall Street') containing those reliable sources. The commentaries and documentation are from professional journalists and a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Wolf has been unable to refute them because she can't. So much for WP:RS.

With regard to Eag's comment that Jayson Blair is notable only for his failure to follow professional journalism ethics, I think that is a good point. But even granting the point with regard to Blair, in the case of Brian Williams his notability, prior to his suspension without pay for "misrepresent[ing] events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq War in 2003", was as the anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News. However, once he was exposed as having fabricated news stories, and his role in them, he became notable for that as well. Williams was the subject of numerous commentaries citing the true facts, just as Wolf has been the subject of repeated criticism, as documented by the inline citations of fn. 64 and 66-74. If mentioning this lapse of journalistic ethics in the lede, with citation, is good enough for Williams, why should Wolf be held to a lesser standard? These journalistic failures make her notable as much as Williams, and for the same reason, and therefore meet the standard of WP:LEDE ("The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.")[emphasis added]. The sentence should be reinstated. American In Brazil (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Sorry to have missed the references. But I disagree that criticisms received by Wolf are in any way comparable to what Williams is going through, and as Eaglizard says, don't warrant mention in the Lede. petrarchan47คุก 06:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts of Petra and Eag to improve WP articles. However, as stated above, I disagree that the criticism of Wolf's journalistic integrity, as documented by 10 inline citations (fn. 64 and 66-74) is not one of "the most important aspects" of the article WP:LEDE. Although Wolf initially became a notable author for her feminist writings, in recent years she has engaged in journalism. That she has been held accountable by her fellow journalists (and one professor) for her failure to follow professional ethical standards of honesty is therefore hardly surprising. It is an "an important aspect" of the article. Nevertheless, one sentence in the lede will not alter my lifestyle and I will defer to your (plural) considered judgment. Perhaps if Petra and Eag read WP:LEDE in full, as I have, you (plural) will change your minds. Now I have something more important to do - it's time for my nap. American In Brazil (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Lede is three sentences long. Adding a fourth sentence about her critics would constitute 25% of the Lede, and would give a misleading impression of the relative prominence of the criticism described in the article. Perhaps the Lede needs expanding to reflect the entirety of the body. petrarchan47คุก 16:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have finally awoken from my nap (LOL). Actually, I was waiting to see if Eag had a comment on your valid point that the lede is very short and needs expanding. If it is expanded, reinserting the deleted sentence will constitute a smaller percentage of the lede and, thus, will not give a misleading impression of the criticism documented in the article. I believe it is important to note that in recent years Wolf has turned from writing books in the feminist genre to engaging in journalism. Having done so, the criticism of her journalism by fellow journalists is an important aspect of the article. I will make it my next project to expand the lede and I invite both Petra and Eag, as well as other constructive editors, to join me. American In Brazil (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

She was criticized about saying OWS crackdown was coordinated. That was proven true though. And I think it's not so notable because the criticism comes from blogger Josh Holland. Popish Plot (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Popish. I finally had the chance to read through the criticisms mentioned above and it appears that much of it is unwarranted for this BLP. Having seen that, I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with the fact that talk of expanding the Lede comes with the express goal of adding criticism to it. I find the Lede to be sufficient for this article as it stands, and think we could devote some effort to scraping through the criticism that's been added to the body with a more critical eye. No one has been watching this page and it seems as if quite a bit of POV editing has passed unnoticed. Also some very real vandalism has taken place over the past week or so, and the page is now protected until July 8. petrarchan47คุก 21:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To set the record straight, the criticism has come from multiple sources: Mark Nuckols at The Atlantic (fn. 34), Meghan O'Rourke at Slate (fn. 53), Joshua Holland at AlterNet (fn. 66, 67), Imani Gandy at Balloon Juice (fn. 68), Corey Robin at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (fn. 69), Gavin Aronsen at Mother Jones (fn. 74), Max Fisher at Vox (fn. 77), Charles Cooke at National Review Online (fn. 79) and Aaron Goldstein at The American Spectator (fn. 80). Further, Wolf herself backpedaled on some of her assertions and took down one of her own posts (fn. 83). American In Brazil (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to Petra - The deleted sentence in the lede does not add criticism. It merely references the nine critical reviews of Wolf's journalism cited in my comment immediately above. This is an important aspect of the article and is necessary for a fair presentation with a NPOV. It should be noted that the article also references favorable reviews of some of Wolf's books. (Also, thank you for reverting the vandalism to the article.) American In Brazil (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I see this one is criticizing her for saying ISIS beheading videos looked staged. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/naomi-wolf-slammed-for-unhinged-conspiracy-theories-20141005-10qq5z I was thinking this was about the criticism of saying OWS crackdown was coordinated. This reminds me of those saying Bin Laden videos were faked. I think that's a valid criticism. I think she doubts the ISIS videos just because they don't show the actual beheadings. That's a conspiracy theory for sure though not evidence of a fact. I also think if you want to mention criticism of what she said about OWS, one thing confusing here is that there is a section for OWS and a section for conspiracy theories. Why not combine them? Maybe because the OWS one is not just a theory but proven? And I see Mother Jones though still disagrees that she was proven correct. That is paraphrased as "According to Mother Jones, none of the documents revealed efforts by federal law enforcement agencies to disband the Occupy camps or provided much evidence that federal officials attempted to suppress protesters' free speech rights. It was, said Mother Jones, "a far cry from Wolf's contention"[74]" but in the article it says that FOIA requests from FBI are still pending which I wonder so maybe it's not paraphrased correctly. Popish Plot (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Popish - This is not an article about Occupy Wall Street; it is an article about Naomi Wolf. If you want to read (or edit) information about OWS, just click the link in the previous sentence and do so. This bio article about Wolf should cite what she wrote as a journalist and what other journalists have written about her journalism. It should not have a biased POV depending on whether or not you agree with what she wrote but rather present her comments, and the comments directed thereto by others, with a neutral POV. As written, the article quotes the relevant portions of her articles in full and then quotes no less than nine commentators who responded to her writings. The issue this Talk page is discussing is whether the lede of the article should contain a reference to those criticisms. American In Brazil (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Um there's a whole section about OWS here. Not sure what you're talking about. Popish Plot (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The section on Occupy Wall Street references Wolf's participation in OWS protests and her writings about them. The lede sentence that was deleted by Petra referenced this section with respect to the criticism of her journalism. It read: "In recent years, her journalistic credibility has been questioned" with a link to the OWS section which contains numerous footnotes critical of her journalism. In addition, there are footnotes in other sections which criticize her journalistic integrity (see fn. 33, 53, 66, 67, 69, 74, 77, 79 and 80). American In Brazil (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you more interested in editing the criticism based on her journalism, not criticism based on the OWS opposition being coordinated? I may have gotten confused but I do see you started this talk page section "Journalistic Credibility" and I wrongly mentioned OWS in this talk page section? I do think for balance if we're are going to make so much criticism be in her wiki article there should be more mention of how she responded to the critics Popish Plot (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Popish - You're right, you are confused. Again, this article is about Naomi Wolf, not OWS. The section on OWS in the article is there because she participated in OWS protests and wrote about them. The inline documentation of what she wrote is contained in that section (fn. 62, 63 and 73). There is further documentation of the responses by the public (fn. 64) and by other journalists (fn. 66, 67, 68, 69 and 74) as to what she wrote on OWS. Wolf's response to this criticism is also stated (fn. 65). In addition, there is criticism of her journalistic integrity by journalists commenting on what she wrote on other matters (fn. 33, 53, 79 and 80). In all, a total of eight journalists (and one university professor) have criticized her journalism. I have looked for positive reviews of her journalism but have been unable to locate any. If you can find one, please feel free to add it - with inline citation. Whether she is right or wrong about OWS (or anything else) is irrelevant. WP is an encyclopedia, not a political discussion group, and it is necessary to provide a neutral point of view WP:NPOV to all its articles, and especially to biographies of living persons WP:BLP, by citing reliable, documented sources WP:RS. Your own opinions belong on the op-ed page of your local newspaper or in the blogosphere, not here. American In Brazil (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Popish - A wise man (or woman) once said: "I think arguments are great and wikipedia should want more of them, but of course only if they are civil and about the wikipedia article topic, not random off topic things.[emphasis added] -User page of Popish Plot- American In Brazil (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Use your own advice. You have an agenda here. That's fine but for a BLP it needs to have due weight. Discussions aka arguments are common on wiki talk pages. Popish Plot (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My agenda is stated on my user page: "I am a firm believer that WP should be an authoritative, easy-to-use resource for readers." Let us all work toward that end. American In Brazil (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. I don't want to make it hard to use. I guess the bottom line is if Naomi Wolf got quiet after Mother Jones article on OWS crackdown not being organized, that is the final say for this wiki page. Popish Plot (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

At the ending of the 2014 conspiracy theory section it says " Wolf did not say how it was possible to independently verify the ISIS videos released by SITE." Isn't this original research? Let's just show what she actually did say. I could come up with some guesses as to how to verify that but that'd be original research too. Popish Plot (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not suggesting changing the body of the article. It is well-written and documented with inline citations and also balanced with both favorable and unfavorable reviews. In addition to criticism of Wolf's journalism, there are references to favorable reviews of some (not all) of her books. If there are favorable reviews of her journalism, I think those should be included as well. But there aren't any, at least none that I can find. If you can find one, please insert it with an inline citation.

Wolf herself backpedaled on her assertion that the brutal ISIS videos showing beheadings were not authentic because they were not independently verified. She took down her Facebook page making this claim, while at the same time apologizing for it (fn. 83). That seems to be pretty good confirmation of the statement: "Wolf did not say how it was possible to independently verify the ISIS videos released by SITE." Having questioned the authenticity of SITE's postings because there was not a separate verification - whether it was possible to verify them or not - the fact is she didn't say how they could be independently verified. (Perhaps she would like to personally cover the story?)

As stated in the preceding Talk section ('Lede'), and at the good (I think) suggestion of Petrachan, I intend to expand the short lede (three sentences) to cover the important aspects of the article and to include a reference to the controversies surrounding her journalism. I invite you, and all constructive editors, to join me. American In Brazil (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It just seems a bit awkward. I'd rather it say something like "Naomi made xxx claim on face book, but then took it down and apologized." Because as far as I can tell, no one, her nor her critics, brought up the topic of how it could be independently verified. At least it's not mentioned in that source (or maybe it was but she deleted it?). Popish Plot (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph (7.2 'Controversies...2014') quotes in full what she wrote, quotes in full her statement: "I stand by what I wrote.", quotes in full her retraction of what she wrote (and notes that two days later she took down the Facebook page where it originally appeared), and quotes in full her apology. As you correctly state, she did not bring up the topic of how it could be independently verified. Therefore, the sentence: "Wolf did not say how it was possible to independently verify the ISIS videos released by SITE" is entirely accurate. But don't lose your head over the subject. [[User American In Brazil|American In Brazil]] (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think just because someone does not say something, we don't have to mention that. She didn't say a lot of things, should we show a list of all the things she didn't say. It's original research. And please don't insult. Popish Plot (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wolf questioned the authenticity of SITE's postings of beheadings by ISIS because, she said, they had not been verified by another source. She was criticized by many of her Facebook followers for this assertion, backpedaled on it two days later (after originally stating, "I stand by what I wrote" [fn. 82]), then took down the Facebook page where she wrote it. Her claim that these postings of brutal murders could not be true unless they were independently verified [fn. 83] is certainly subject to reasonable inquiry of how they could be independently verified, as you yourself correctly stated. Therefore, not only is this sentence true: "Wolf did not say how it was possible to independently verify the ISIS videos released by SITE," it is also relevant to the controversy she herself created.

I am sorry you mistook my comment "But don't lose your head over the subject" as an insult. It was not meant that way and was only a tongue-in-cheek reference to the particular topic. I readily admit that it is not a matter to joke about. American In Brazil (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I just got the "joke", will not "lose my head" about it ok. How would one verify the authenticity of those ISIS beheadings? I could speculate how, you could check the videos for signs of computer manipulation, it'd original research though. If her claim is subject to reasonable inquiry, it'd have to be inquired by a reliable source not by you or me here on the talk page. That sentence you quoted from the article may be true, but if it doesn't have a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article. Popish Plot (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence has a reliable source - Wolf herself. She claimed on her Facebook page that the postings of ISIS murders, including several posted by SITE, were suspect unless verified independently (fn. 82). She then backpedaled on this assertion two days later by stating, "I certainly apologize if one of my posts was insensitively worded. I have taken that one down..." (fn. 83). These two inline citations make the sentence both true and relevant to the controversy she created. American In Brazil (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not for what she didn't say. She also didn't say that ISIS are really aliens so should that be in the article? Do you see my point? Popish Plot (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ms. Wolf didn´t say anything about aliens. But she did say the ISIS videos were not independently verified and therefore were suspect (fn. 83), despite the fact they were posted by ISIS and SITE. The sentence is accurate and relevant to what she said, not to what she didn´t say. Do you see my point? American In Brazil (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:UNDUE. You can't synthesize an unfavorable conclusion from bits of a couple different sections, then ignore all positive and neutral information in those sections and claim this is an accurate assessment of her career. Edit warring and insulting edit summaries will not insure this stays in the intro. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel - I am happy to continue the discussion with you on Talk and I appreciate your appearance here. The criticism of Ms. Wolf's journalism has come from multiple sources, all in the journalism community, as detailed above and in the article by fn. 34, 53, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 77, 79 and 80. These footnotes appear in no less than six sections and subsections. The sentence you deleted in the lede refers to her journalism only. The lede starts out with information on her best-selling books and her position within the femininist movement but does not mention her extensive journalism. WP:LEDE clearly states that the lede should summarize the main aspects of the body of the article and also contain references to important controversies. To leave this out is to skew the POV away from neutrality. If you wish to expand the lede, please feel free to do so, keeping in mind WP's three core principles of (1) neutral point of view WP:NPOV, (2) verifiability WP:VER and (3) no original research WP:OR. American In Brazil (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept that Wolf's journalism has come under criticism, and having skimmed some of that criticism it seems fairly justified. What I oppose is the blanket statement to that effect in the intro. Many journalists and writers have come under criticism. Why are we singling out this particular person for a statement like this? Why is criticism of Wolf so notable that it belongs in her intro? Has she been criticised less or more than other journalists? Can we support that with sources? Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions, please see the lede on Brian Williams. American In Brazil (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lead on Williams overemphasizes one particular incident, in violation of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. But in that article there is a source which states that he made a "number of inaccurate statements about his own role". Is there a source for Wolf which states "there have been a number of journalistic criticisms of her work"? Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

See the footnotes cited above. There are no less than nine journalists (one of whom is a professor in the Graduate Center of the City University of New York) who have criticized her journalism since 2004. In addition, Wolf herself backpedaled on at least one of her claims after stating, "I stand by what I wrote." (fn. 83 and 84). American In Brazil (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are addressing the point here, which is not quantity, but synthesis and context. Also, please self-revert as your latest revert violated WP:3RR. Let's keep this discussion as congenial as we can, without the need to involve noticeboards and policy violations. Gamaliel (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that discussions on Talk should be cordial; I always assume good faith unless an editor displays otherwise. It should be noted that there is a distinct difference between adding information and deleting it. The sentence was added to the lede, not because of quantity of the criticism, but because of synthesis and context. Ms. Wolf has written for many leading publications and her articles have generated considerable controversy. Her journalism on a variety of topics has come under fire from a wide range of other journalists, all documented by inline citations. To not mention this fact in the lede would violate WP:LEDE. I agree that I inadvertently violated WP:3RR, and I will self revert, but I reserve the right under that policy to add back the sentence in the future. As stated above, the sentence is necessary to provide a summary of an important aspect of the article and to make note of prominent controversies WP:LEDE, as well as to provide a neutral point of view WP:NPOV in contrast to the points stated elsewhere in the lede. American In Brazil (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether the extensive criticism of Wolf's journalism is justified or not, the fact is - it is there. WP is an encyclopedia and WP:LEDE requires editors to feature in the lede (1) prominent aspects of the article and (2) significant controversies. It is also necessary to provide a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. American In Brazil (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment immediately above. There are now 10 inline citations criticising Ms. Wolf's journalistic credibility. It is an important aspect of the article with respect to her journalism and is a significant controversy, as attested to by the citations. Editors are required by WP:LEDE to feature these aspects of the article in the lede. If you wish to expand the lede please feel free to do so, but do not remove information necessary to provide a NPOV. American In Brazil (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ten inline citations sounds impressive unless you also look at the total citations, and the article as a whole. The Lede is now 20% criticism. This does a poor job of reflecting the contents of the article. The sentence you added was also tagged here with the note "see WP:CSECTION"; I have added the tags back. petrarchan47คุก 08:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ten inline citations IS impressive - almost 12% of total citations. The citations are: fn. 34, 53, 55, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 81, and 82. The sentence was originally referenced to some of these criticisms, but YOU removed the reference (Sept. 30, 2015)! Thus, you are criticising your own edit. I am adding back the link. American In Brazil (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was editing another section in this article, and had this on my watchlist. My own suggestion is that the lead does not adequately summarize the article. MOS:LEAD allows for 4 paragraphs in the lead as good practice. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. My own feeling is that the debates within feminism are more important to present in the lead rather than the later journalistic criticisms. But the issues about WP:UNDUE regarding both areas can easily be handled by simply expanding the lead to summarize the article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and implemented my suggestion myself. Feel free to revert/discuss/edit/whatever. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was a good faith effort and this isn't directed at you, but the whole idea of including this in the intro is completely absurd. What other journalist on Wikipedia has an introduction which openly criticizes her work in this manner? Look at the milquetoast introduction to Andrew Breitbart, who out in the world is heralded as the second coming or denigrated as a cynical, amoral provocateur, depending on who you ask. Why is Wolf singled out for special treatment here? Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism belongs in the article, but not in the lede. Reverted to a more neutral version until a better consensus is achieved. Also, is the criticism notable? It's not enough that the linked media have actually criticized the subject, but someone needs to have written about that criticism. The right criticizes the left, the left criticizes the right - not notable at all until a third party brings it up. I don't see that sourced. Scr★pIron^IV 20:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel and ScrapIronIV: I have never looked at the Breitbart page, but it is routine to have criticisms for everyone in the lead in the area I work in mostly, WP:ARBPIA. See Gideon_Levy, where he is called a "propagandist for Hamas" - the lead for that is also totally inadequate. Secondly, the other debates within feminism has also been removed by ScrapIronIV. Thirdly, on what basis did ScrapIronIV determine that criticism belongs in the article and not the lead? The part of MOS:LEAD I quoted clearly states otherwise. Fourthly, can anyone claim that the lead right now summarizes the article as a whole? Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I see, I have made a total of two edits to this article; one to restore maintenance templates and this to restore neutral tone while discussion is ongoing. What "other debates within feminism" have I removed? What is at issue here is whether the criticism is part of what makes the subject notable - per what you have quoted. Who supports and who criticizes is minimally important, and yet a WP:SEAOFBLUE was added for pro and con in the lede. What makes the subject notable is their body of work, and what reliable sources write about them. Bringing in a list of biased sources - from either side of the political spectrum - saying which support and which criticize is not part of the subject's notability. Scr★pIron^IV 21:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"What other journalist on WP has an intro which openly critcises her work in this manner." See intro to Brian Williams. American In Brazil (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

When a journalist is caught openly lying about events, and is fired for it, that is actually part of what makes them notable. Scr★pIron^IV 21:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: I do not oppose your revert - you are fine to remove it, indeed I said it is ok to revert me in my own statement. I am asking for reasons. When you say that "criticism does not belong in the lead", it is directly in contrast to the guideline I quoted. Secondly, you are correct that criticism needs to be written about by other people. But what I added was simply a summary of the "Beauty Myth" section. In any case, it is very easy to find many people writing about Paglia's criticism of Wolf. See [4] for an example. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have since read several other similar pages, including Camille Paglia, Katie Roiphe, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. None of them have criticisms in the lead, so I am a bit ambivalent about this. That said, it is perfectly legitimate per MOS:LEAD to include criticism in the lead because a large part of this article is devoted to debates and criticisms. The part I know best (which is not very much), Wolf's positions within feminism are certainly discussed and debated widely. I have little or no knowledge of her journalistic work. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Read the footnotes cited above criticising Wolf's journalism. American In Brazil (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism belongs in the article, but not in the lede." Scr*pironIV, 5 Nov 2015 "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." [emphasis added] WP:LEDE American In Brazil (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the lead I wrote earlier. There is nothing in MOS:LEAD which states that the lead shouldn't contain criticism, quite the contrary. Also, as this section states: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." See also the discussion in the section "Excessive criticism". Feel free to revert/discuss. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive criticism?

Today American in Brazil added to this already bloated quotation:

Writing in The Atlantic in January 2013, law and business professor Mark Nuckols declared, "In her various books, articles, and public speeches, Wolf has demonstrated recurring disregard for the historical record and consistently mutilated the truth with selective and ultimately deceptive use of her sources. All of this might have little real-world import when she writes about her orgasms or her weight problems. But when she distorts facts to advance her political agenda, she dishonors the victims of history and poisons present-day public discourse about issues of vital importance to a free society." Nuckols further stated, "if you compare her characterizations of the historical sources and current news accounts that she cites with the sources themselves, it is possible to discern a pattern of serious misstatements and errors in her political writing." In particular, Nuckols argued, "Naomi Wolf has for many years now been claiming that a fascist coup in America is imminent. Most recently in The Guardian she alleged, with no substantiation, that the U.S. government and big American banks are conspiring to impose a 'totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent.'"

I don't know whether Mark Nuckols' words are being given undue weight in this article, but this seems excessive to me. petrarchan47คุก 18:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• AiB also removed the NPOV tag placed on the controversy section, which I am now re-adding. It should remain until consensus is formed here. petrarchan47คุก 18:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite Nuckols? Sure. Devote a large paragraph to one article? No, that is undue weight. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, trimmed it to this... (however the controversy section is still bulgy). What would you recommend? petrarchan47คุก 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing in The Atlantic in January 2013, law and business professor Mark Nuckols wrote, "In her various books, articles, and public speeches, Wolf has demonstrated recurring disregard for the historical record and consistently mutilated the truth with selective and ultimately deceptive use of her sources." On the real=world impact of this, he said "when she distorts facts to advance her political agenda, she dishonors the victims of history and poisons present-day public discourse about issues of vital importance to a free society." Nuckols argued that Wolf "has for many years now been claiming that a fascist coup in America is imminent. Most recently in The Guardian she alleged, with no substantiation, that the U.S. government and big American banks are conspiring to impose a 'totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent.'"

Wolf's journalism has been subject to extensive criticism by other journalists and two university professors. These critical comments are stated in fn. 34, 53, 55, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 81, and 82. That is 10 reliable sources out of 84 citations, or almost 12% of the article. The reason for these criticisms is that Wolf's journalism is dishonest, not unlike the journalism of Brian Williams, which is cited in both the article and the lede on Williams. But don't believe me - read the above-referenced citations from a wide range of reliable sources WP:RS and decide for yourself. The paragraph Petrarchan47 edited states just three sentences from a long article (and I only added one sentence - in full and without comment). If there are positive reviews of Wolf's journalism, I believe these should be added, too. But there aren't any, at least none that I can find. If you can find one, please insert. In order to have a neutral point of view WP:NPOV in biographies of living persons WP:BLP, it is necessary to state both sides of a controversy. Wolf's comments are extensively quoted. For a NPOV, it is only fair to state the responses to her comments. User:American In Brazil|American In Brazil]] (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) PS. Now that Petrarchan47 has moved a whole section (Alleged sexual encroachment...), the numbering of the footnotes is a little out of sync with the footnotes I cited above. Please see version prior to the edit to follow the footnotes cited.

The history of this talk page shows we have been going in circles with this same issue - you believe her critics should have a larger stage at her bio. What I and others see as neutral, such as the Lede, you see as lacking criticism. Because this is a BLP, I take issue with what may be a non-neutral motivation. The controversy section is far too elaborate as it is. The rape allegations don't need such extensive coverage, and since she's a best selling author, I am sure there are positive reviews of her writing. There are no editors who seem dedicated to working on this article besides you, from what I can see, and that may be the reason for the lack of positive coverage. I don't know. Finally, if the article has too many of her quotations, as you suggest, that is a separate issue, and really should not be used as an excuse to add excessive criticism to her bio. petrarchan47คุก 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's not confuse Ms. Wolf's writings as a best-selling author with her journalism in newspapers and magazines; they are two separate issues. Her feminist works have been both favorably and unfavorably reviewed, as cited in the article. The sentence you removed from the lede was not criticism but merely a reference to the fact that her journalistic credibility has been questioned by other journalists in recent years. It had a link to the "controversies" section where readers can read her comments and the responses of the journalism community thereto. Similarly, the sentence you removed from the Nuckols article in The Atlantic was only a brief fair use quote from a long article; the sentence was quoted in full. In fact, this paragraph had only four sentences from the article; I added one more. I did not add the full paragraph, only one sentence. The "rape" (actually, "sexual encroachment" as Ms. Wolf termed it) allegation was quite sensational at the time it was made - particularly since it was made against a prominent professor - and, in fact, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education was begun seven years later after complaints were received by 16 current and former Yale students. It is an important aspect of the article, and of Ms. Wolf's journalism, and as such it is subject to critical review. WP is an encyclopedia and should present a NPOV by stating what the subject (Wolf) wrote and the responses of other reliable source writers to what she wrote, the same as any other author. Certainly there is at least one other editor dedicated to this article - as evidenced by the number of edits - YOU. Your claim above that "the controversy section is still bulgy" does not carry much weight since YOU increased the size of the section by moving the "Alleged sexual encroachment..." section (from earlier in the article) to this section. Thus, your criticism of the "bulgy" controversy section is criticism of your own edit. If you want to make it less "bulgy" move it back to where it was. I did not suggest that the article has too many of her quotes. The topic is Ms. Wolf, and as a writer of both books and many journalism articles (which is why she is notable for a WP article) it should quote her extensively. As for my motivation, I have never met nor spoken to Ms. Wolf. My agenda is clearly stated on my user page: "I am a firm believer that WP should be an authoritative, easy-to-use resource for readers" with the emphasis on 'authoritative'. American In Brazil (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes 'enough' and 'too much' criticism is a matter of POV. I realize this is an encyclopedia, but on biographies of living people we take extra care not to allow the articles to become coat racks for criticism, which can easily become what appear as attack pages. Five direct quotations from one article is excessive by any standard. And while the "sexual encroachment" allegations may have been big headlines at the time, they aren't what she is known for; the section should be trimmed according to due weight. Finally, you've twice voiced the opinion that Naomi Wolf can be compared with Brian Williams, and argued that because his Lede mentions the public fall from grace, it follows that Wolf's bio should mention criticism you see as congruent. For one thing, Williams was a household name, beamed into households nightly for years. His incident was major news and ended his career. Wolf is relatively unknown, and criticism of her is equally insignificant. There is no comparison. petrarchan47คุก 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "enough" or "too much" is inherently subjective. However, subjective does not mean arbitrary: one can try to argue for some standards. AiB's reasoning about the proportion of footnotes etc. seems fine to me; if there are positive reviews of her journalistic work (as distinct from her writings on feminism), they can be added. Failing that, the approach of pairing criticism with Wolf's own responses also seems a good way to go. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The footnotes are the result of editors who subjectively chose to add criticisms. The question is whether or not those criticisms all have a place here per due weight. petrarchan47คุก 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, everything is subjective. The criticism is sourced adequately (more than adequately, I would say) and spans a pretty large political spectrum - Alternet and Mother Jones are somewhat leftist, The Atlantic and Vox are roughly liberal to centrist, National Review and American Spectator are right-wing. As to the statement that What I and others see as neutral, such as the Lede, you see as lacking criticism, that is inaccurate. The version I wrote was indeed neutral - I added a lot of complimentary material, with some criticism. All the criticism has been excised, and what is left is a puff piece. I understand that the position of some people is that the lead should not contain criticism, because other leads don't, but the lead as it stands currently is hardly neutral, and does not reflect the article itself, as MOS:LEAD requires. See the section "This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I imagine you haven't closely read my comments on this talk page. I have never questioned whether the sources were reliable, rather I have been questioning whether they are excessive per WP:WEIGHT. My remarks about the Lede were directed toward AiB about the Lede prior to your work. I have also never said that the Lede shouldn't contain criticism, in fact if you scroll up this page you will see where I said exactly the opposite. My concern is with weight (balance, NPOV). What do you think of the subject of this thread, namely, the paragraph dedicated to an article from Mark Nuckols? petrarchan47คุก 04:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank Petrarchan47 and Kingsindian for their comments and efforts to improve this article. Let me explain my thoughts - first about the article and then about the lead. As I see it, the problem with Ms. Wolf's journalism is that it is dishonest and therefore has resulted in criticism from a widely varying political range of journalists, as Kingsindian correctly states. Dishonesty can be done by commission or omission; Ms. Wolf does both, as you can easily read from the footnotes. Thus, it appears that there is undue weight of criticism when, in fact, there is none because there are no favorable comments from the journalism community, at least none that I can find. If there are any positive comments to her articles, they should be included with an inline citation. The problem of appearance can be solved by "the approach of pairing criticism with Wolf's own responses," as Kingsindian also says. This is exactly what the article does. There are Wolf's quotes, the responses to those quotes from the journalism community and then Wolf's reply. By presenting both sides of the arguments, a balance is struck resulting in a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.

With respect to the lede, as Kingsindian again states, "all the criticism has been excised, and what is left is a puff piece." WP:LEDE requires: "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." Further: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Here is what I propose to get us to 'safe' (that is, concensus) ground: 1) Move the section 'Alleged sexual encroachment' back to where it was without changing its content. This will help alleviate the "bulgy" (i.e., lengthy) problem with the 'Controversies' section. 2) Leave out the sentence that I added to the Nuckols article in the 'Controversies' section, keeping the section just as it is now. As Petrarchan47 notes, the quotes from that article are sufficient. Readers who wish to learn more of what Nuckols wrote can simply click on the footnote link and read the full article. 3) Add back the sentence at the end of the fourth paragraph of the 'Controversies' section which read: "Wolf did not say how it was possible to independently verify the video posted by SITE." Petrarchan47 removed it because it was 'not sourced." In fact, it is sourced by the previous footnote. It is both accurate and relevant to what Wolf said. However, it should be added back before the inline citation, not after, to make clear that it is properly referenced. 4) Add back to the lede the sentence: 'In recent years, Wolf's journalistic integrity has been questioned' and add to the sentence 'by other journalists,' with a link to the 'Controversies' section. This is merely a summary in the lede of the criticism, and not criticism in and of itself. Ten footnotes of criticism, out of 84 total footnotes, is a significant aspect of the article.

Ms. Wolf is not a "relative unknown." She has written for a range of important publications that are read by decision-makers as well as the general public. She is a notable contributor to political debates on many topics. The criticism of her journalism is an important aspect of the article and should be referenced in the lede, with both sides of the discussion featured in the article. We need to get it right. What are your thoughts. American In Brazil (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: There are several points. I missed your comments on whether lead should contain criticism or not. If your position is that it can, then we agree. I will then restore the lead which I wrote which was balanced. Regarding the rest of article, what do you think of the solution AiB proposed? Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi KI, this section is about excessive quotations from one particular author, it is not about the Lede, and I frankly have no idea what you're going on about. I have never discussed your version, I never reverted it, I haven't even read it. I asked you about the subject of this section in my last comment to you, and you appear to be ignoring me and going in some other direction, using some of my comments as support. I don't get it, but have fun. Whatever. petrarchan47คุก 06:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: I specifically said that they were separate matters (see my first sentence), because you made a comment about the lead yourself. I have already replied to your question about the undue weight: I said that the latest comments by AiB are on point and detailed, and they seem to me a good approach. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Let`s all stick to the task of improving the article and not personally criticize one another. Different opinions are to be expected. If you go to a movie with a friend and s/he says, "I didn`t like that film," and you say, "I really liked it," does that mean you are no longer friends? Or do you discuss the reasons for your opinion? Preferably at the local coffee house.

I think the edit to the lede by Kingsindian is a substantial improvement. I have taken the liberty of deleting the redundant sentence stating she was a political consultant because it is already stated in the first sentence. I also added 'feminist' to the individuals mentioned to particularize their positions as favorable and unfavorable critics of Wolf's feminist works.

With respect to the body of the article, if there is no objection I am going to: 1) move the "Alleged sexual encroachment section" back to where it was without any changes to the text. This will help solve the problem pointed out by Petrarchan47 that the "Controversies" section is too long; and 2) add back the sentence at the end of that section, "Wolf did not say how it was possible to independently verify the video posted by SITE." The sentence is accurate and relevant to what Wolf said. However, I will post it before the inline citation to make the reference clear. I am not going to add anything to the Nuckols quotation in the "Controversies" section because I agree with Petrarchan47 that the Nuckols article is sufficiently quoted as it is. As I stated above, readers who wish to know more can simply click on the footnote link and read the whole article. American In Brazil (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I made the changes stated above and I think the article is greatly improved. Thanks to you all for your comments and suggestions. Now I am going to turn my attention to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which explains why time only moves forward. American In Brazil (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If we have reached concensus the NPOV tag should be removed from the "Controversies" section, in accordance with Petrarchan47's comment at the top of this Talk section. I will wait a few days to hear your responses. American In Brazil (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No further responses having been received, I assume we have reached concensus. Therefore, I have removed the NPOV tag from "Controversies". American In Brazil (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel - There has been extensive discussion above on this matter and concensus has been reached. The sentence in the lede that you removed only states that there is criticism in the article about Ms. Wolf's journalism and is not criticism in and of itself. This is in accordance with the obligations of editors under WP:LEDE and WP:BLP to feature relevant aspects of the article in the lede, including important controversies. You can read these principles directly for yourself by clicking the links in the previous sentence. The appearance of undue weight occurs because there are only critical comments about Wolf's journalism and no favorable comments by other journalists. At least there are none that I or other editors can find. If you find one from a reliable source WP:RS please insert it with inline citation. The solution to this problem is, as Kingsindian has stated above, "the approach of pairing criticism with Wolf's own responses." The article does this by quoting what Wolf wrote, then the responses of other journalists to what she said, then Wolf's response to the criticism. By presenting both sides of the argument a balance is achieved that removes the issue of undue weight and provides a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. If you think you have a better solution, let's hear it. American In Brazil (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added an undue tag to the article, as the lede places undue weight on a small part of the article out of proportion to the role this criticism plays in her career and is inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles on similar topics, such as Andrew Breitbart. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel - On the contrary, the lede refers to a lesser percentage of the article devoted to Ms. Wolf's journalism than the critical footnotes of the article itself. The sentence you deleted from the lede was one of eight, or 12.5%; the article now contains 11 footnotes of criticism out of a total of 84 footnotes, or 13.1%. These footnotes are: fn. 34, 53, 55, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 79, 81 and 82. Thus, your statement that there is undue weight in the lede is simply untrue. Further, this sentence in the lede does not criticise. It merely refers to an important aspect of the article, namely extensive criticism of Ms. Wolf's journalistic integrity by other journalists, in accordance with WP:LEDE and WP:BLP. As Kingsindian has stated above in this Talk section, if we excise the sentence from the lede "what is left is a puff piece."

With respect to the article itself, Ms. Wolf has engaged in journalism for the last 20 years. This is no small part of her career, as evidenced by the prominent publications in which she has appeared. Criticism of journalistic integrity is hardly unusual in WP articles and their ledes. You have selected one example where criticism does not appear in the lede (although criticism does appear in the article). But you leave out other WP articles of journalists where criticism is in the article and is referred to in the lede, such as Brian Williams and Gideon Levy.

I will leave the undue tag you have inserted pending further discussion. American In Brazil (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian Williams was the subject of a single major controversy. Wolf is the subject of minor, scattered criticism. I am not familiar with Gideon Levy, but the intro to the article offers a balance of views, where no balance is offered here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that it is hard to find favourable notices of Wolf's journalism, whereas the criticism cited covers a pretty large political spectrum. One should keep in mind that WP:NPOV does not mean false balance. If the reality is unbalanced, then one should indeed present it that way. In that respect, Vani Hari may be applicable here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not advocating false balance. But we should not assemble a collection of criticism on our own and present it as if that is the reality and all of the reality. That presents a false picture and violates WP:SYNTH. Gamaliel (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As Gamaliel notes, Brian Williams was the subject of a single major controversy - but Ms. Wolf has been the subject of numerous controversies. Whether a controversy is 'major' or 'minor' is a subjective judgment but, as Kingsindian notes, criticism of Ms. Wolf has come from a broad political spectrum. In addition, the criticism has come not only from the journalism community but also from two university professors (fn. 34 and 71). As far as other journalists are concerned, besides Williams and Gideon Levy, I can add Jayson Blair all of whom have had criticism of their journalism featured in the lede and in the article. Why would Ms. Wolf be held to a lesser standard?

The first sentence of WP:NPOV states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

As Kingsindian also states, "it is hard to find favourable (Br. sp.) notices of Wolf's journalism." I would disagree somewhat - it has been impossible to find favorable (Am. sp.) notices of Wolf's journalism; it appears there are none. If you can find even one, Gamaliel, please insert it with an inline citation. Lacking any positive notices of her journalsm, however, should we then ignore the extensive criticism from a wide diversity of political views? This creates a false balance, one that simply doesn't exist. But we can still achieve neutrality by quoting what she wrote, the critical responses to what she wrote, and then her reply to the critics. This presents both sides of the argument. What could be more neutral than that?

Fortunately, we do not have to add this approach to the article. Through the good faith efforts of many editors it is already there. This significant aspect of the subject, and these prominent controversies, should be referenced in the lede. WP:LEDE: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." American In Brazil (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between us citing a secondary RS that says "Wolf's career in journalism has been controversial" and editors looking at individual criticism and making that conclusion on their own. There are ample secondary sources which describe the controversies in the careers of Williams and Blair. What I see for Wolf is a collection of individual criticisms complied by editors. If my assessment is incorrect, please point me to the secondary sources which support that conclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The invocation of WP:SYNTH is wide off the mark. The lead does not contain the statement that "Wolf's career in journalism has been controversial". It contains the statement that "Wolf's journalism has sometimes been criticized for being conspiratorial and overblown by writers in National Review, Alternet, Mother Jones and The Atlantic." This requires no synthesis of sources, the claim is contained in each of the sources. See this Mother Jones article which claims exactly this. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article - a summary necessarily involves some imprecision and generalization. If this sentence is not a fair summary of the "controversy" and "occupy wall street" section, then we can tweak it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what SYNTH is, a conclusion based on our own assembly of primary and secondary sources. It's UNDUE because we're saying it's our opinion that this criticism is worthy of note in the lede as opposed to the same kind of criticism every writer and journalist gets in the regular course of their jobs, a conclusion that's backed up by nothing other than the personal assessment of a few editors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what SYNTH is, a conclusion based on our own assembly of primary and secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What two sources am I synthesizing to write the statement? Each of the sources cited makes the same point. Examples: "Naomi Wolf has written hysterically about coups and about vaginas and about little else besides. She has repeatedly insisted that the country is on the verge of martial law, and transmogrified every threat—both pronounced and overhyped—into a government-led plot to establish a dictatorship" from The National Review, "has for many years now been claiming that a fascist coup in America is imminent. Most recently in The Guardian she alleged, with no substantiation, that the U.S. government and big American banks are conspiring to impose a 'totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent." from The Atlantic, among others. I will deal with WP:UNDUE later, when this is cleared up. (There is a long discussion above regarding this).Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are the individual opinions of her critics, hardly an unbiased assessment of her career. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And what has that got to do with the price of fish? The claims are attributed to the critics, properly. If we can agree that it is not WP:SYNTH, then we can proceed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between biased primary sources and neutral secondary sources. We're using the former to make claims in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"I accept that Wolf's journalism has come under criticism, and having skimmed some of that criticism it seems fairly justified." - Gamaliel, 23 SEP 2015.

What we have here is failure to communicate. As an encyclopedia, the voice of WP must remain neutral, as Gamaliel correctly suggests. But Gamaliel has conjoined two separate issues: namely, undue weight and editor synthesis. I have already demonstrated that there is no undue weight in the lede, since the sentence in the lede merely refers to the criticism in the article and is not criticsm in and of itself. This is the obligation of all editors under WP:LEDE. The lede sentence referencing this criticism is 12.5% of the lede (1 out of 8 sentences) and the footnotes in the article are 13.1% of the total footnotes (11 out of 84). Thus, Gamaliel's claim that the lede sentence is weighted unduly is simply wrong. Indeed, the lede sentence is actually generous, since it only references some of the critical articles of Wolf's journalism, whereas the article contains many more.

With respect to the article itself, NO editor has been able to find a single favorable review of Wolf's journalism. If Gamaliel or anyone else can find one, please insert with inline reference. But lacking favorable reviews, should we then ignore the unfavorable reviews. Or should we provide balance by stating what Wolf wrote, the response to what she wrote, and then her reply to the critics. This is presenting both sides of the argument - the very definition of neutrality.

As far as Gamaliel's statement that the reliable sources cited have claimed that "Wolf's career in journalism has been controversial," there is NO source that has said this. ALL the sources state what she wrote, and then what is wrong with what she wrote. Her writings have been dishonest by commission (where she falsifies what the documents she is writing about say - see fn. 76) and by omission (where she leaves out important information that contradicts what she wrote - see fn. 53). She even falsified her own academic achievements to support her argument's thesis when she stated that the alleged "sexual encroachment" (as she termed it) that she supposedly encountered at Yale resulted in her "educational experience (being) corrupted." As Meghan O'Rourke of Slate.com noted: "(s)he neglects to mention that she later was awarded a Rhodes (scholarship)..." (fn. 55). These falsehoods by commission and omission, as well as the many others cited in the other critical footnotes (fn. 34, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 81 and 82) do not constitute undue weight or bias. Indeed, one critic in the same philosophical position as Ms. Wolf apologizes for having to write a negative essay of her journalism, then proceeds to do so, which contains perhaps the most critical of all the comments: ["...a journalistic failure of the highest order."] (fn. 70).

As far as synthesis is concerned, i.e., drawing unwarranted conclusions or making biased editorial comments, no editor has drawn ANY conclusions or made ANY editorial comments. Gamaliel's position is that ANY critical citation MUST be biased. This ignores the careful analysis of Ms. Wolf's journalism by a wide range of commentators across the political spectrum. It also does a disservice to the good faith efforts of many editors who have worked very hard to create an encyclopedic article that presents all sides of the debates Ms. Wolf herself has engendered.

As Petrarchan47 states above, the undue tag should be removed when concensus has been reached. The "weasel words" tag in the lede is also unwarranted. Having reached concensus, I am doing exactly that. American In Brazil (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, except removing the tags. Let the discussion continue to play out a bit more. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Since we are all on the English WP, and since in the English speaking countries the burden of proof falls upon the accuser, I think it is only appropriate to leave the tags off unless and until proof of undue weight or bias is supplied. However, I am all in favor of continuing the discussion. American In Brazil (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That may be the normal way, but on Wikipedia, the tags are usually kept till the discussion is resolved, either formally, or informally, or the discussion becomes dormant. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I will compromise by restoring the undue tag and leave out the 'weasel' tag. American In Brazil (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is now 12 days since the last posting here. If there is no further discussion on this issue in the next 10 days, I will remove the undue tag on 24 DEC 2015, in accordance with Kingsindian's comment above that the tag should remain until the discussion is resolved or becomes dormant. American In Brazil (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse..." Nor, apparently, were WP editors on this article. Since there has been no further discussion regarding the undue tag, and in accordance with Kingsindian's, Petrarchan47's and my comments above, it appears that concensus has been reached. Therefore, I am removing the undue tag. American In Brazil (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naomi Wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903112803/http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/612/burqa-ultimate-feminist-choice to http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/612/burqa-ultimate-feminist-choice

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Education

I just heard an interview on the BBC in which she said she returned to Oxford to take a degree as a mature student. What was she awarded and when?

She supposedly got a DPhil in 2015 as the article now says - but there's no verification for that. The obvious one would be a link to the thesis in the Oxford Research Archive, but I couldn't find it. Anyone? Did she, in fact, get a DPhil?

References

Naomi R. Wolf: Middle Initial?

What does the R. stand for?

Nuttyskin (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The R stands for Rebekah, see https://archive.list.co.uk/the-list/1997-04-18/87/ and https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.820646. Fences&Windows 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit about anorexia

@Petrarchan47: I don't understand your edit summary. Care to elaborate? Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I am mistaken, but shouldn't the sources you are using relate directly to the subject, in this case, Sommers' criticism of Wolf's E.D. numbers? You've taken sources related to eating disorders, not to Sommers or Wolf, and continued Sommers' argument. In my understanding, this is disallowed by the PAGs. That said, I appreciate the information - but it doesn't belong here, as far as I can tell. petrarchan47คุก 22:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not heard if there is anything in PAG about this. I generally dislike the "he said/she said" kind of stuff, therefore I gave a short explanation for the facts. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's where the confusion lies. We can add Wolf's claims, and we can add counterclaims and/or support from notable persons in RS, but WP does not allow for editors to 'explain the facts'. If we add a source that explains the facts, it would have to relate directly to the subject. petrarchan47คุก 08:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as one is not engaged in WP:OR about the "facts", I don't see it as violating policy. Your point has a certain validity, and one can use it to argue for exclusion based on WP:DUE weight. But I don't agree with a categorical statement that it is forbidden by PAG. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well now I'm more curious than anything. Gamaliel, since you've been active here in the past, would you consider weighing in on whether these additions (which I removed in this diff) are in keeping with PAGs? petrarchan47คุก 09:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems too close to WP:SYNTH, using primary sources to assemble an argument supporting one side or the other. Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

But which side does it favour? The first part favours Sommers, the second one favours Wolf. I basically took the lines from the lead of Anorexia nervosa (though I added the second reference, because the one in that article seems to be broken). Secondly, suppose for the sake of argument, the facts did favour one side. Why would it matter? But I agree with the point that it can seem too close to WP:SYNTH. So I don't mind leaving it out. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

There's a section of her biography missing between 1987 when she finished her Rhodes Scholar activities to 95 when she started her journalistic career. Anyone? The Dissident Aggressor 19:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Her first book The Beauty Myth was published in 1991, and Fire With Fire was published in 1993. American In Brazil (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

TDA - You raise a good point. Wolf's second book, Fire With Fire is not mentioned in the article. I will add some info on it shortly. American In Brazil (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have moved Fire With Fire to a more prominent position as Wolf's second book. American In Brazil (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Article structure

The article is largely convoluted. The section "Childhood, education and personal life" has a paragraph on the alleged sexual encroachment, even though there is also a whole section about it. The 2019 book is mentioned in "Childhood, education and personal life", "Other writings" and "Criticism". The Criticism section cites op-eds and hit-pieces, but I see that it has previously been highly contested by editors above. Recent criticism has been put into the Criticism section, while older criticism is combined into the relevant career sections (together with praise). That violates WP:NPOV. Not to mention that WP:CSECTION says that criticism sections are discouraged. As I see from this article, Wolf's reception has always been similar, so the article's structural issues are likely because of editorial bias. wumbolo ^^^ 12:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Mistake

Text currently states: “Immediately following Sweet's claim that he had found the definition on the Old Bailey website, Sweet went on to make a negative critique of the Old Bailey Website itself: "You see the problem with the Old Bailey records is that it doesn’t give you any detail at all, does it? It’s just names, and then..and then...the verdict.”[101]

The sentence cited does in no way criticise the „Old Bailey Website“, but refers to the structure of the „Old Bailey records“, which must have existed as such long before the internet. Furthermore, I cannot read any „negative critique“ of their (the record‘s) structure in the cited sentence, just a hint at that their structure prevents them from revealing the kind of information that Wolf was trying to read into them. Thus, the term „problem“ is rather used euphemistically here.

For example, take the statement: „Person X was eating a brownie cookie - the problem was, it only looked like a brownie, but was in fact a piece of dung.“ One should not read the term „problem“ here as a criticism of the presumed brownie, but as a reference to the cognitive mishap of the person eating it. Analogously the term “problem“ in the initially cited sentence is a reference to Wolfe‘s insufficient ability to cope with the structure of the record, not a criticism of the structure itself.--2001:16B8:267D:6300:64E5:2503:FBEE:3411 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s not that I think such a discussion would be of any use. The “Immediately following...” statement is some pointless pseudo-discussion anyway, which wants to point the attention away from the fact that Wolf is a sloppy academic (she made a mistake by wrongly interpreting information), by trying to put some blame on the information she was using. It’s a sort of the “Chewbacca-defence” (not sure the spelling is right...).--2001:16B8:267D:6300:64E5:2503:FBEE:3411 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The article had been written to argue that Dr Wolff had magnanimously thanked Dr Sweet for his correction, but this appears bogus as at several points through 2019 and 2020 she has libellously tweeted about how Sweet has been trying to 'erase LGBT history' and suchlike.--pyrococcal (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Holland

@Philip Cross: I can't see that his work has been reprinted there either, but he was called "Perhaps the most thorough and influential of the critics" here and Wolfe wrote a rebuttal here, so≥ I believe that his criticism should be (NPOV) included. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The entry for Alternet is fairly strong at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, although it does allow for what you suggest. Wolf's rebuttal is cited already in a generalized form and might be expanded. Philip Cross (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)