Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Needs positive reception

Right now the entire reception section contains pieces by people who are her ideological opposites. Which is fine, but the section is termed "reception". If you read all the negative things named in the reception area you'd be under the impression that no one has ever found any good in her... That's how life is "perception is reality". If you only represent negative reception of her work, you mislead the casual surfer (the actual people reaching wikipedia) that the entire world finds her work unserious, and funny.

I'm sure you see the problem here? It needs some positive reactions and praises too to balance things out. --AlekNovy (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, another way to put it, is-- people who think manipulation and spinning are OK-- since they are absolutely right, and have already figured everything out.

Sean7phil (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservative libertarian?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Alice rightgrrl.com is not a reliable source. The no. 2 ref to the article formerly published in SpinTech magazine[1] does not show where Hoff Sommers is "a self-described conservative libertarian". The 3rd ref's link is broken[2]. It needs to be demonstrated where this claim can be verified using a reliable source - if it can't be demonstrated then User:Carolmooredc is correct & I'm afraid the text must be removed as per WP:BLP--Cailil ^talk 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if she is at the American Enterprise Institute because she is 'a conservative'-- or rather it's because U.S. academia has become so one-sided, and so unsafe, for moderate political voices that the AEI is simply a safe place for her to continue her research and writing.

Given her limited range of focus in the public discourse (which is not a criticism), I’m not clear why it is relevant where she places herself ideologically. She could express the same views that I’ve read and heard and be anywhere on the political spectrum. The fact worth stating is that she is at AEI, which is sort of neoconservative ground zero. Nicmart (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

75.166.179.110 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Messed up references

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

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

merger?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The section that Skoojal keeps deleting meets all these criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.3 Socially Conservative Equity Feminism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.3 Socially Conservative Equity Feminism

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

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

Font bold is my addition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

I continue to disagree. In the sentence, "Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000a)" the Sommers citation clearly modifies the sentence. Please note that the reference is to Sommers' book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men. At no point in the book does Sommer's categorize what "socially conservative feminism" is. The reference is clearly to the entirety of the book, and thus to Sommers herself.

Sommers is also listed under "Equity Feminism" which is considered part of "Libertarian Feminism" in the SEP article. The paragraph includes this:

Christina Hoff Sommers concurs, arguing that, rather than failing to provide girls with an education equal to that of boys, our current educational system disproportionately benefits girls (Sommers 2000, 20-23, 178).

Just some food for thought.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the book Moral Soundings By Dwight Furrow labels Hoff Sommers as someone interested in "moral conservation," which he uses as a synonym for social conservative. Link: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tGPYH6dnrEMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=%22traditional+values%22+%22Christina+hoff+sommers%22&ots=R5iWVWSgwa&sig=OSU6P1tONd6aWjjY-9rxeZU7btg#PPA248,M1 --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian?

The article currently reads, 'The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes Sommers as a socially conservative equity feminist, as well as a classical liberal or libertarian.[1] Advocates for Self-Government identify her as a "libertarian"[2] while author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a "libertarian.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that you don't care whether the Advocates website is a reliable source or not? Obviously it has to be assessed as a reliable source, or it can't be used. Note that it seems to think that libertarianism and conservatism are the same thing; it refers vaguely to 'libertarian/conservative thinkers.' That's a good enough reason for not using that source to say that Sommers is a libertarian. You may also want to note the following [3]. This says that Sommers makes the case for "conservative feminism", not "libertarian feminism", as one might expect from a supposed libertarian. It, 'argues that moderates, conservatives, and libertarians should rescue the noble cause of feminism from the radical left.' To take this position is a far cry from calling oneself a libertarian; it is effectively a self-identification by Sommers as a conservative. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there's this, [4]. Again, it mentions libertarians, but Sommers doesn't say she is one. Or there's this, [5], which refers indifferently to 'conservative and libertarian' ideas, as if they were the same thing. It's perfectly obvious that Sommers is avoiding a self-description as a 'libertarian' in the interests of building a big tent against politically correct feminism. Skoojal (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Calil, we don't explicitly say "Christina Hoff Sommers is a libertarian/conservative/social conservative." We say that she works for/with conservative organizations and that others have categorized her as such.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why use Marshall at all, rather than any other sources? Being "interesting" is not enough. Here [6] and here[7] are sources stating that Sommers is a conservative. Many more could be found. Here [8] is a source where Sommers states that she is not a "rabid market capitalist", which is what "libertarian" is usually taken to mean (as most people, certainly including Sommers, would know). Thus, there is a problem of undue weight in using a source claiming that Sommers is a self-described libertarian. Skoojal (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Per my above suggestions[9][10] there is a slightly different way to handle this information--Cailil ^talk 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving it without identifying here and letting people draw their own conclusions from her associations definitely the best way to go, given the controversy even among a few people here. Note I haven't seen any evidence she's been involved with any libertarian groups, even though some may praise her writings.

Now what about this constant deletion by one person of Washington Post criticism of her book? First, because it was undue and now with excuse we have to show lots of other criticism to allow this one?? Carol Moore 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I've deleted that because I consider that adding only one negative review of that book, as if it were representative, is an attack on the subject of this article. Skoojal (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Carol, if you could reduce the size of the piece on the Post's review of The War Against Boys it should be okay to add it--Cailil ^talk 12:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did several edits ago but it got deleted, got put in in full, got deleted, got put in... well, i've lost track. I'll try again and see what happens. Carol Moore 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

PS. Since there have been complaints there is only ONE critical review of Sommers I found another one and included two sentences to make clear what author was talking about. Two reviews make a clean, neat paragraph :-). Carol Moore 15:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Ok, I did my best to accommodate all recent new changes and positions last night, with a few errors which others have corrected. I'm hoping everyone is relatively happy. Carol Moore 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Criticism

To be added --Kitrus (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't. If you add this, I will almost certainly remove it. It's yet another attack on Sommers, giving a one-sided account of her dispute with Nina Auerbach. Skoojal (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Research v. Actual Sources

I am amazed that the approach to the article now involves Wikipedia editors scouring Sommers' interviews and comments in order to draw their own OR conclusions about whether she is rightly described as libertarian or not. That is entirely inappropriate. Alongside this, we now have the suppression of an actual, reliable source - the Marshall article. Remember: for Wikipedia, verifiability is the issue - readers can look up the Marshall source and see that it says what we say it says. Whether Marshall is "right" is not for us to determine. Why is this published source being replaced by the hunches of editors that it might be better to call her this or that rather than what she is called in the secondary literature? I'd also ask Skoojal why deletion is still being used as a tool to edit the article rather than seeking consensus. There is zero support for the claim that these are BLP issues. I emphasize: deciding that Marshall is wrong is nothing but OR.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The choices are

• list Marshall saying she's a libertarian (since libertarians love to claim people are libertarian, she easily might have been misled) PLUS listing the Wash Post and National Review saying she's conservative, plus all her political affiliations pointing to her being conservative
• just leaving out all opinions of what she is an letting her affiliations speak for themselves. (which at least two of us here recommend)
• bring this to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and see who they think is most reliable Carol Moore 16:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Numbering them for ease:

• 1. Are you saying Barbara L. Marshall is a libertarian!!? She's a Professor of Sociology with a solid list of academic publications. There is no good reason for not using her as source. If anyone can come up with a source which expresses an alternative view, it can be added for balance.
• 2. Why? That's not how Wiki articles are usually written. What's special about this one?
• 3. Most reliable of which sources? I honestly don't understand.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

There is only one source that qualifies as reliable stating that Sommers calls herself a libertarian. Adding it is undue. I will remove it if it is added. Skoojal (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal,

Evenhandedness isn't the same thing as due weight. Can you provide a list of reliable sources that give positive reviews to her book(s)? If all the reliable sources have negative reviews, then WP:DUE requires that we represent all the reviews as being negative. WP:BLP doesn't apply to the books themselves, or the quality of the arguments advanced in those books, even if the author is alive and even if the author is believed to hold the beliefs presented in the books.

Similarly, can you provide a reliable source that places her on a political spectrum? If we have a few reliable sources saying X, and many saying Y, then it is appropriate for us to represent all the significant interpretations. If trying to pigeon-hole her views is something that reliable sources do, then we need to represent their attention to labeling her views per WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

KD Tries Again,

The problem with presenting Marshall's assertion as an undisputable fact is that it's (apparently) the only reliable source that has claimed this, and other reliable sources have (apparently) made contradictory claims. Nobody has been able to find Sommers directly self-identifying as libertarian, which would neatly resolve the problem. Marshall asserts that Sommers self-identifies (or did?) as a libertarian. We don't know if Marshall means "I was at a speech she gave, and Sommers said, 'I am a libertarian'" or if Marshall means "Based on the tenor of her writing and certain phrases that I find significant, it's my opinion that Sommers is identifying herself as libertarian, even though she never used the actual word 'libertarian'." We just don't know: Marshall doesn't cite her sources. So it's safer to put a little editorial distance between us and her uncorroborated-and-disputed assertion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: if there is no evidence that all or most reviews of Sommers's books have been negative, one cannot mention only negative reviews. Finding a couple of negative reviews is not evidence that most or all reviews were negative (the same would be true for positive reviews, granted). Regarding Sommers's politics, I provided several sources stating that she is a conservative, which is plausible enough. Skoojal (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can include negative reviews of a book without proving that they're the only kind that exist. A statement like "This book was criticized as being poorly written^[ref]" (or whatever the actual criticisms are) does not contravene BLP because it's about the book instead of about the author. Books are not living people. They are therefore not accorded protection under BLP. If you want balance in the reviews about the books themselves, then you will have to provide reliable sources that positively review the books themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Including a single negative review makes it look as though the review is representative of all reviews. It does not matter if the person adding it says that this is not their intention. It isn't reasonable or sensible to do that. Adding two or three negative reviews would make matters worse, and definitely looks like taking sides against the subject of the article. The question has to be asked, what is so important about any one of these reviews that justifies it being mentioned?Skoojal (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a cite which disputes Marshall, it should be added. I haven't seen one yet, only OR based on editors' personal readings of other sources. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does to suggest that articles only include indisputable facts. Basic Wiki 101: what counts is not truth but verifiability, and any reader can go to Marshall and see that she says what Wiki says she says.KD Tries Again (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Verifiability is a Wikipedia [core policy.] The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. .KD Tries Again (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD, the issue is a little more complicated than whether or not we can find a single reliable source that makes some claim. The source in question makes a particular assertion. The accuracy of the source's assertion has been challenged. Several reliable sources were provided on 18-Sep that Skoojal says contradict this assertion. Just in terms of common sense, it might not be appropriate to assume that a person who writes "The Case for Conservative Feminism" is not a conservative, on the simple grounds that a single author says so.

We haven't found a reliable source that resolves the contradiction. It would be silly to say "Sommers is X^[ref] and not-X.^[ref]"; Wikipedia should not have self-contradictory sentences.

The straightforward solution is to place some distance between us and the sources. We do this by saying Sociologist Barbara Marshall says that Sommers is a libertarian,^{[Marshall book]} but other sources list her as a conservative.^{[refs Skoojal listed above several days ago]}

We present all the information, we don't declare that any of it is True™, and we let the reader make his/her own conclusions. Do you understand how this resolves the difficulties? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing:

I agree with you entirely. This is a good basis for a consensus. My beef has been with Skoojal blocking a valid citation, first on some obscure BLP policy basis, and then apparently based on his own OR. Marshall is a (Wiki) reliable source and should be retained - my point was that it's not for us to figure out whether she is right or not. I have no problem retaining other cites describing Sommers as a conservative (note: personally, I don't think that's necessarily a contradiction - and Skoojal has produced nothing which states Sommers is not a libertarian; but we're not here to debate that of course). Ideally, I'd keep Marshall's language about Sommers self-identifying as a libertarian, to be faithful to the source - preferably in the footnote itself. I suggest we go forward on this basis.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I very much doubt that there is any reason to include Marshall here. If there is only one reliable source (the Advocates website clearly does not qualify) stating that Sommers self-identifies as a libertarian, then using it would be undue. A discussion of how it is difficult to categorize Sommers politically would be a big pile of Original Research. Skoojal (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Mentioning the assertion of a single author as being the assertion of a single author does not violate WP:DUE.

Saying that "John Smith says Sommers is a conservative, and Barbara Marshall says she is a libertarian" is not a violation of WP:NOR. What does violate WP:NOR is "Based on my understanding of her beliefs, and my understanding the best place to draw the line between libertarianism and conservatism, I think she's best classified as (fill in the blank)." Similarly, saying that other editors aren't allowed to quote verifiable statements because you personally don't think the reliable sources got it right is a violation of the spirit of NOR.

We can deal with dueling sources. We can't deal with "You're not allowed to say anything on this important issue because I don't like what your reliable sources say". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal is making the claim that the magazine/website for the organization "Advocates for Self-Government" is not a reliable source. Is there any reason why "The Advocates" is not a reliable source? There is a wiki page for the organization.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the guideline on Reliable Sources. It's perfectly obvious that website does not qualify. Using it is BLP violation. The fact that the organization has an article about it is irrelevant. Skoojal (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What specific guideline do you believe The Advocates violates?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I directed you to the guideline. There was a link in my post. Skoojal (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are avoiding a real discussion.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is up to you to read and understand the guideline. There's nothing that indicates that the Advocates website is a reliable source. It probably counts as a fringe organization, and its use as a source here is not welcome. Skoojal (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, a plain statement of fact like "Some authors consider Sommers to be a libertarian" is not a BLP violation. Please, if you won't accept my word for it, post a note at BLP/N. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, can you back up your claim that it is a fringe organization? We are, after all, talking about a rather esoteric writer and an esoteric political movement (libertarianism). --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an obvious fringe organization, that is, a group advocate the views of a tiny minority. The bottom line is that there is no reason to consider it a relisble source. Skoojal (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

<---Back Indent

Quickly reading through here couple points which could be compromises if people decide to edit cooperatively!:

• Even as a libertarian I recognize Advocates is not a reference that can withstand challenge under WP:BLP.
• There are two relatively positive reviews of Sommers ref'd in the text. Feel free to read and quote from them rather than complaining. Reason National Review
• If People really want to say Marshall says Sommers is a libertarian but Wash Post and Nat Review call her a conservative, we can.
• The last edit was a mess. Please revert/change carefully.
• "controversies" is a standard wiki section heading; "Polemics and debate" is just too POV. Is there any defense for it?

Carol Moore 02:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I know nothing about "The Advocates." Can someone explain to me why it is not reliable? That's all I'm asking.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you won't go to WP:BLP i'll give you text of most relevant link from it: Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Advocates is a libertarian advocacy group that publishes things it thinks make libertarians look good, including by claiming that people are libertarian who may be conservative with a few good libertarian views. Carol Moore 02:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Okay, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other to include the Advocates (we have several other places where Sommers is listed as "libertarian." But, I would resist using your own anecdotal evidence on what makes a source reliable or not. Also, according your quote, it is safe to say that "The Advocates list Sommers as a self-described libertarian" because we are attributing the categorization to the source. My intention here is not to argue, but for all of us to understand better.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP: Note that Skoojal did post about this on the [BLP Noticeboard] and has received no third party response, because indeed the decision about which sources to use in this case just isn't a BLP issue. Nor, as WhatamIdoing says has it anything to do with due/undue. There seems to be a consensus on using Marshall with the exception of one editor, and we should go ahead. I do see the problems with the Advocates cite (although note that it's not the only one: Sommers is listed as a "prominent" libertarian here too. That's not a good source either, but we have the Marshall cite and there's no good reason to suppress it.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• (edit conflict) Okay people are talking past each other here. Let's make things very simple.
  First, Carol is correct the advocates site is not a reliable source - please refer to WP:RS's definition of a reliable source to understand why:

  Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

  The same goes for KD's source above. Just because something is claimed on a website does not make it encyclopedic. Encyclopedic information will be what is considered a major POV on a subject published by a widely respected source. We achieve NPOV my summarizing multiple major POVs on subjects.
  Second, there was a possible BLP issue here when the article was being used as a coatrack for criticism - this has been resolved as far as I can see. There is no longer a BLP issue here - describing someone as a conservative or libertarian should not be a BLP concern - that might fall under WP:WEASEL if they were unsourced or unverifiable.
  Thirdly there is a due weight issue somewhat in regard to using Marshall's remarks - but this should be resolvable. In fact I offered a suggestion just the other day (that until a major source describes Hoff Sommers as anything the article should just state that she has worked for X organization or spoke at a Y conference rather than ascribing politics to her). Alternatively Carol's suggestion (that when using Marshall it should note her POV) is perfectly reasonable and proper. Attribution of a POV and a provision of context for it help resolve the due weight issue around Marshall. This should be done since there seems to be a consensus to use the Marshall quote--Cailil ^talk 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That way of using Marshall sounds good to me. (I haven't seen any sign of this being a coatrack, i.e. an article purporting to be about Sommers but actually being used to advance a different agenda; but maybe that refers to earlier versions.) KD Tries Again (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Compare the weight give to the "criticism section" in the August 20th 2008 diff with September 23rd 2008 diff then read Wikipedia:COATRACK#The_Criticism_Gambit and Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Please also refer to WP:RS and WP:DUE. Reading the essay WP:CRITICISM might also help explain why the way this information is being handled is considered problematic: Template:Criticism-section offers suggestions on how do it properly--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that some of the coatrack problems still remain--Cailil ^talk 19:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, your evidence is not clear to me. The entire article has been "beefed up" and is much longer and broader than it was in early September. Can you give explicit examples of where you think we should cut?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Find a 3rd party, reliable, published source that deals with the AAUW issue, summarize its point in 3 sentences or less and replace the blocks of quotation about the AAUW issue in the criticism section. Also be aware that in general criticism sections should be avoided in BLP articles - the reasons for this are spelled out by the essays, guidelines, and policies I've linked to above--Cailil ^talk 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We may be moving into the area of semantics. We can easily remove "so and so criticises" and simply write "according to so and so." With regards to the AAUW paragraphs, a third party reference would be great. However, I don't think using the primary sources is innapropriate in this instance. The quotes give the reader the actual dialogue - and gives the reader an opportunity to come to his or her own conclusions. I will look, but I don't think that we will find a neutral source in the AAUW/Sommers debate - commentators on these kinds of cultural debates are generally highly ideological.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See below[11]--Cailil ^talk 22:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note re: tagging

I have tagged the Criticism section as OR for the manner in which it is presenting the information on the American Association of University Women. While it would be good to add information on this to the article what is currently presented is original research. Is there a published third party reliable source that deals with this issue?--Cailil ^talk 19:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now the section appears to be 99% sourced quotes. Why is this original research? Note - not being argumentative, maybe just missing the point.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I would also like to know why this was tagged and what, specifically, would be the reason for OR. Primary sources do not necessary make something Original Research - Original Research is a charge usually levied against wiki editors, not primary sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to the treatment of the AAUW issue. Stringing primary sources together is essay-style. As it stands the way the information is presented here (primary source 1 + primary source 2) is a novel synthesis and although it's informative it's original research and not acceptable material for this encyclopedia. Is there a 3rd party reliable source that deals with the AAUW issue? If not then the presentation of this information is obviously "original". There is also a due weight issue with it. This quite simple, if no other serious sources (other than wikipedia that is) have discussed this aspect of the subject's biography, or accorded it as much prominence as it has here, then this issue is being given too much weight. Part of the problem is caused by the length of, and amount of, quotation; the other part is the inherent notability of the issue - which is simply measured by the amount of, and depth of, discussion it receives in 3rd party reliable sources--Cailil ^talk 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

According to 3rd party reliable source: "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose. Tertiary sources — compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources — may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."

I think we meet this criteria.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to "strining together primary sources to advance an agenda": We are not sringing together primary sources on the same topic. We show who has been criticising Sommers in a list, just as we show Sommer's positions in the section above in a list. There is a difference between listing and "stringing" to put together a point of view. The POV is in the criticisms themsevles.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice if the "criticism" is not a novel synthesis of primary sources then you should be able to show us all a significant published and reliable source that overviews this issue--Cailil ^talk 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A synthesis combines two or more pre-existing elements resulting in the formation of something new. We are not claiming anything new in the Criticisms section. We list the criticisms, that's all - just as we list Sommer's theories on feminism. We do not make new claims based on the list of criticisms.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice, is there a 3rd party source that overviews the issue of Sommers and the AAUW?--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing a another look:

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/books/reviews/waragainstboys0703.htm (This goes into the dispute between Sommers and AAUW in detail)
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/education/20girls.html

I had forgotten completely about that NY Times report! But it only briefly mentions the dispute between AAUW and Sommers. We should definitely include these. However, we still need to provide the reader with context, and I think the primary quotes do this.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alice - I would actually recommend sticking to secondary sources. Link to the primaries by all means but if the mentions are consistently brief in the secondary sources then there is too much weight being given to the topic here. Using and summarizing the secondary sources should remove any WP:NOR concern--Cailil ^talk 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be more concerned if editors were stringing together quotations to advance one point of view. Quoting two opposing viewpoints hardly strikes me as a synthesis, novel or otherwise.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It's better to use the secondary sources. Using the primary sources is going to be problematic in this case because of what they are (ie the memo) and the site it is stored on[12] - this site is not a reliable source and hosting such a document is dubious practice regarding copyright--Cailil ^talk 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues were not addressed

The issues raised per WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK were not addressed. Fair warning was given - this is a WP:BLP article & policies are enforced here strictly. I have rephrased, reworded and reduced the "criticism" section and made it a "reception history" section (see WP:CRITICISM, WP:STRUCTURE, Wikipedia:Coatrack#Fact_picking and Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise). There are still some issues with its content as regards due weight. Also I've removed the primary sources for the AAUW issue - please add information from the secondary sources into the body of the article rather than creating another criticism section--Cailil ^talk 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Using Acronym for organization most people don't know

I am glad this article has calmed down. But it does seem to me that just as a matter of good wiki editorship we should spell out he names of organizations that the average reader would not know. Therefore we should revert back to Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting ("FAIR"), from the change to just FAIR change made today. Carol Moore 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol, it should be "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting" without the underlines.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And the reason you didn't just fix that, instead of reverting to the acronym, is what now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Just a bit busy, and therefore sloppy. I'm sorry.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cut out far too much criticism

While I think the former section was about 1/3 too long, cutting it by 80% is absurd. Ms. Sommers is a big girl and she can take it. See the criticism sections of such controversial male writers as: Bob Woodward or Pat Buchanan or even women like Ann Coulter. There is no reason to treat delete all that material like she's some delicate flower who will crawl in a hole and die if she reads it. Including by giving the questionable new section title "Reception History" which I've never heard of before. Carol Moore 01:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Agree. Remember that Skoojal posted an alert about this article at the BLP noticeboard and received no support for his views. Incorporating reasonable, sourced criticism of a living person is not a BLP issue. I'd note further that the article calmed down because editors ceased deleting material without first seeking consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm not against critical content - far from it - but becuase this is a BLP article it will be strictly policed as regards weight and coatracking. The solution to introducing the AAUW issue is to use the secondary sources and accord them appropriate weight. But be aware that there is a specific problem with using lengthly quotations - especially from reviews that are not especially notable - see my above post--Cailil ^talk 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have energy to compared former long version with this, but I do recommend that if you two disagree you get other opinions from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Carol Moore 00:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Totally the Wrong Forum to Deconstruct Sommers In

In the various contortions in this article, what I have never seen is an actual quote from Hoff Sommers book, say on the March of Dimes report, followed by a "That is inaccurate, here is the citing for the that March of Dimes report." Until then, it isn't appropriate to turn the tone of this page into something that makes Sommers appear to be ranting. Look she was right, the report does not exist, and it was cited by some well established feminists. It is a fact, and all serious researchers should appreciate that someone would go through the trouble to chase all that stuff down.

This is a page on Christina Hoff Sommer's - not on you. If you want to write a scholarly article deconstructing Sommers that is fine with me, but publish it in an appropriate forum.

If you want to include a section on reviews, then the reviews should be all the reviews, not only from a hand select few from people buzzing at the pain of having it pointed out that they did shoddy research and that their departments had such relaxed ethics and low thresholds for quality that the authors were not called on it before this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.125.18 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Many biographies have sections on controversies. Though perhaps you are right reviews would be better. But you have to edit to make the changes you want, not just critique it. I know I've put all the time into this I'm going to. Knock wood. Carol Moore 12:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol... YES, many biographies have a controversy section, but they don't ONLY have a controversy section. No other biographic article I've ever seen has 10% biography, 90% controversy, and 0% positive reviews. This entire article is a mockery of the encyclopedic format. Criticism is fine, but the thing criticized has to actually exist. This page contains absolutely NO information on what her views are, but a plenthora of criticisms of her views. If it weren't april 26th, I'd think this page was an april fool's joke. --77.29.249.212 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What an Embarrassing Rant This Page has Turned Into

Take for example reference 3:

She talks about her latest book--The War Against Boys--and she talks about her old book--Who Stole Feminism?--and she explains to these Dowling College students that she is a feminist, or anyway was a feminist until she realized that feminists today have gone too far. "We've had a decade of antimale propaganda like the world has never known," she insists. It troubles her. "We are pathologizing maleness," she says.

This gets reduced to "she no longer calls herself a feminists" for an introductory paragraph.

It is ironic that the biography on Hoff Sommers would require so much work to track references down and to see the spin when this is exactly what her critism of feminist writing was.

I would suggest deleting this page and starting over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to edit to make the changes you want, not just critique it. I know I've put all the time into this I'm going to. Knock wood. Carol Moore 12:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Page Overhaul

I added a list of all of Dr. Sommers books right at the top, not just the two that seemed to dominate disucssion here.

I ran down some of two of the criticism references. I think it was horribly unfair to just put the conclusions down without explanation. The original sources are very short, very general, and dearth of scientific information. What they actually are is infighting between researchers. Though it may be fun, the wiki shouldn't participate in that. .. The wiki on the Cole source may exceed the words on the topic in his own writing. I would suggest dropping the section.

I enjoyed reading Mr. Rotundo review. He wrote honestly, and he disagrees. He admits his biases up front and says he is a gender feminist, and that he views the world as having been dominated by boys to the exclusion of girls. This bias didn't make the wiki. Essentially Rotundo is a cultural relativist, and Sommers is a moralist, so they are diametrically opposed philosophically. Rotundo was even honest enough to admit there was a problem. Again, this didn't make the wiki.

Cole's comment about 'hasn't sought them out' looks a little awkward to a layman. What can it mean, does Sommers not have children, should she spend more time at playgrounds. However it makes perfect sense if you know the history here. It is in fact an carefully crafted insult flung at Sommers. -> Gilligan used subjective means of observation that Sommers strongly contested. What she would do is go sit in class rooms of children and make observations. In other words she would 'seek them out'. Sommers criticized Gilligan, and now Cole turns it around on her and says she hasn't sought children out. But Sommers is on the high ground here. Careful works in psychology, "House of Cards" and "Science and Pseudo Science in Clinical Psychology" talk about the dangers of observations are without careful controls. Sitting and making observations is as much a Rorschach ink blot test for the observer as it is a sociology experiment. It is impossible for the researcher to know if he or she learned about the group or about his or her own perceptions. According to the scientific method, observations need to be followed up on with careful designed repeatable experiments. Sommers makes a reasonable case that Gilligan did not do this. Anyway, these type of back and fourths are very old, not Skinner's Constant, a term still used: that number which when multiplied, added to, or otherwise combined with one's actual results yield the result desired.

Sommers made some real and very specific accusations of academics dishonesty. These have been largely answered with emotional replies and generalizations. Billions of dollars was spent (1.6 billion a year at least) due to the results of some of these studies. It really matters if they were done right, and it seems they were not. The biggest indicator of this is that no one is answering questions such as where the March of Dimes study came from, and it is true, Gilligan refused to make her research data available for review (Sommers brought this up also.)

Page Overhaul

I going to remove the criticism entry by Karen Houppert because it is dishonest, which might be ok, but also for a laymen it is very misleading. Note the following comments on her review:

> Did you hear the one about the school that, thanks to the feminists, wanted to ban freeze tag as too aggressive?

A federal program paid for by federal funds came up with this conclusion. I know this true, not because of Sommers, but because it was at my son's school. They elementary school children were not allowed to play tag. She also has the conclusion wrong here, it was because it was considered to be a prototype for rape. This is hardly a "she says"

> What about the one where feminist researchers tried to make boys play with dolls?

Just two paragraphs up, the cultural relativist faults Sommers for not supporting this, what more need be said. This is hardly a "she says"

> How about that boy who was raised as a girl?

Dr. Money of Yale (was it Yale) spent years raising a boy as a girl in order to prove cultural relativism was true. He was famous over it until the _boy_ suicided and left in a note "I'm a boy." Upon review it turned out he had synthesized his data. (Dr. Gilligan won't release her data, so it can't be reviewed.) I wonder if it is Dr. Money's studies that Anthony Rotundo was referring to when he said that most studies supported his position. This is hardly a "she says"

> She goes for Reader's Digest quotable quotes: "We're so unaccepting of boys and their simple high spirits. If Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were alive today they would be put on Ritalin."

One and six americans are on psychotropics. Again, it is incorrect to call this a "she says" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific Allegations

Does anyone know of any article that addresses specific charges made by Sommers, such as the March of Dimes report, the wrong statistics, etc.? I have never seen one, but if you have, please let me know, I would like to read it.

It would interesting to have a section that has a more complete list of ethical lapses pointed out in Who Stole Feminism. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the first paragraph under "Criticism," which was entirely unsourced and appears to be original research, as well as violating NPOV. Also removed a couple of snippets of editorializing in the rest of this section (e.g., the sentence which begins "Cole sets the tone by starting with innuendo..."). Dausuul (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is inapropriate

The article is called "cristina hoff sommers", yet it reads as if it were titled "criticism of cristina hoff summers".

How can the criticism section take up 80% of the article? Her ideas are never presented, but then they are attacked at length. Someone is having a rant of a good time here instead of contributing to a free encyclopedia. This needs to be looked into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.249.212 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this is by far one of the most ridicolous articles I've ever seen on wikipedia. The actual PERSON that is being discussed is only covered in a few lines, and then this person's opponents are covered at incredible length. It's like the article on "theory of evolution" being entirely about creationism, with no mention of what the theory of evolution is, its history, or any of its points, just the rebuttals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.249.212 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the impression here of criticism. It was because of that impression I turned to the talk page, surprised it wasn't under contention, and read all of this. I am releived to see the last two edits. And, shocked to hear about Dr Money of Yale: I found dubious (as a scholar with publications accepted into the British Library) the criticism offered as 'just rebuttals'; It makes no difference whether the reviews were in the New York Times or not. The concerted criticism here in the article, appears to be merely an attack on the subjects speech, and with poor reasoning and scholasticism. A guest writer positioned in a major newspaper is no excuse. The back and forth talk about wikipedia rules that began form the start of this page, misses the point that the citations of criticism, whilst attributable to a source, appear to be poor in themselves concerning scholastic criticism; they simply fail to my mind, raising questions. But to the layman it would impress. In which case, it is an article which simply mocks the subjects work. Thanks to Dimitrisdad for raising some of these, and probably saving this particular 'project' and others. Wikipedia's rules may not really work so well for polemical anti- or conservative feminism, without the example of talk pages (argument) we see here. In which case it's very important to get this right. It's interesting, because this PERSON has attracted the kind of suppression that they have complained about. Jakbop (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jakbop the criticism section has been contenious for over a year. The fact is the policy based objections to almost all of it (WP:NOR and WP:DUE) were ignored. I'm not sure where you see people using the policies of this site to include the critical material - I made a number of posts explaining the exact opposite - due to policy we can't accord so much weight to the content to which you are objecting--Cailil ^talk 12:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note a majority of that material has been removed. I think what remains should be shortened significantly. I've also renamed the section 'reception' rather than 'criticism' becuase criticism sections do not belong in wikipedia articles (see WP:CRITICISM--Cailil ^talk 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again this material has been removed for the same reasons above. Please read the site policies listed above before including the same material again--Cailil ^talk 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Much improved, just needs a little balancing now

The article has been improved severely once we reported it to the people in charge of biographies. So its a lot more biographical in nature, and they renamed the criticism section into "reception".

Just one last thing to get this article up to par. The reception is entirely about negative reception. Which is 1) very misleading, you'd think we're dealing with hitler, all the reception being negative (perception is reality) and number 2)the wikipedia guidelines say that responses need to be balanced. Both the positive and the negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.249.229 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Its ironic, she's a victim of the exact same thing she speaks of. Her entire work is based around talking about how gender-feminism censors and discourages any dissent and tries to remove any opposing and differing views. And this is what they did here as well, they made this article to the point where it looked like a parody, it didn't look like it was a part of wikipedia.

Soon as we get some counterbalancing positives views, we're good to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.249.229 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to point out the same irony, after having read the article and talk page. In the light of how feminists behave, how can one not be anti-feminist? (Speaking as someone who is pro-woman, pro-man, and pro-equality.)88.77.149.250 (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Allan Johnson criticism

I can see that user Cybermud has been reverting my edits on all kinds of articles. He either removes dictionary definitions of words or in this case he removed a sourced criticism by Allan Johnson [13]. Please don't do this again. Otherwise you will be reported for vandalism and wikihounding. Randygeorge (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"All kinds of articles" is hyperbole. You only edit one kind of article. You are in Wikipedia pushing a very specific POV. All your edits are to add criticism to any author that questions the tenets of third-wave feminism (such as Sommers) or rationalize the misandry of authors like Solanas. Additionally editing the lead-in and first sentence for the article of antifeminism to say it is the "promotion of men's superiority over women" and putting in highly questionable quotes to say author Warren Farrell "promotes incest." All of your edits are cherry-picked direct quotes that promote your POV. I am not hounding you, like you I am also interested in gender issues, unlike you I am trying to improve the quality of WP's coverage of the topic not push a POV, editwar and shoutdown every other editor who disagree with me (and as far as I can tell they almost universally disagree with your edits.) When making changes to articles that you can reasonably surmise will be controversial you might want to try discussing them on the talk page before making them. There's a reason half your edits have been undone (and not by me.)--Cybermud (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the above this article has already been reviewed for BLP issues and a substantial number of critical quotes were removed to create the "reception" section that exists today. This is well documented on this page and the result of the work of many editors. Your work to reconstitute those problems is detracting from those efforts.--Cybermud (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am highly supportive of adding critical commentary to pages, but I humbly ask that such material be reliably sourced. An mp3 from someone's personal blog is not a reliable source. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've searched in vain through Google for "Allan G. Johnson" Hoff Summers and come up with nothing... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am generally not supportive of adding even reasonably verifiable negative quotes to the reception section. See discussions Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#Needs positive reception and the section RIGHT above this one Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#Needs positive reception#Much improved, just needs a little balancing now. This article was, once upon a time, completely dominated by negative quotations in a section called "criticism." This was reviewed by the BLP wonks for WP:Undue and WP:BLP issues to be what it is today. Adding more direct quotes to that section should do more than say "Sommers gets attention for promoting male power and privelege." If there is something substantive to add besides such broad generalizations it should be discussed or, even better, added to the article on the specific work of Sommers that is being criticized.--Cybermud (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything- whether supportive, negative, or whatever- coming from Johnson about Summers that is reliably souced. Zippo. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Allan Johnson gave an interview for GenderTalk Radio. So there you go. Please correct your unfounded removal of sourced material. Randygeorge (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for a reliable source. Please provide one. Free blog mp3s are not what I have in mind... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

• George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Research Conducted by Christina Hoff Sommers

In the article, Christina Hoff Sommers is quoted a lot and most of them are about Sommers attacking scientists and their research.

• Is there any research conducted by Christina Hoff Sommers herself?
• Is she conducting any research which is not flawed as the ones she is bashing?
• If she is not conducting research, why are her "opinions" important for Wikipedia?

These questions need answers for the future of this article.--129.7.255.109 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Sommers is a social critic. She expresses opinions. Social critics have no more obligation to have conducted research than food critics need to have been chefs. Her opinions are relevant because they interest many people, whether they are wrong or right. Nicmart (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)