Talk:Radical feminism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

quotation on psy and "of" or "or"

If you have this source, could you please check this quotation for accuracy?

a coherent analysis of either male of female psychology

It's in the article, in the Criticisms section, and is attributed to Ellen Willis, Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism, p. 134 et seq.

If it needs correction, please edit the article or post the correction here.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, courtesy of Iamcuriousblue. Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Phallocracy"

I seriously question the fact that "Phallocracy" redirects here. Even more since the word itself isn't in the article 87.220.132.127 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)R, 5/5/2011

No citations for long passages of text

Much of the text in this article is uncited, including long passages relating to radfem reaction to the sex-positive/sex-negative dichotomy, etc. I'm not a wikipedia regular, but one of you who knows what you're doing should either add citations or temporarily remove those passages.

72.242.187.42 (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't work like that. You're either a contributor or you're not but people don't do free work on demand because you tell them so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.35.15 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed problematic paragraph

I removed a paragraph under the "sex negative?" heading that was completely unsourced, contained original research, and contained numerous other NPOV issues.--75.134.142.69 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Misandry don't real

Misandry don't real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.82.37 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC) (Reformatted (moving text to after heading & deleting leading space causing nonstandard boxing): Nick Levinson (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC))

Carlin?

The George Carlin quote should be removed from the criticism section -- it's both not an academic critique and not explicitly aimed at "radical feminists" versus other schools of feminism.

I'm undecided. It's a tertiary source. Comedy is so often false in wording that it is usually unreliable as a source; we'd have to know whether this statement was made noncomedically or, if comedically, with intent to be truthful as phrased. To know whether his statement is against feminism generally or radical feminism particularly, we'd have to know Carlin's context, if any, or about Carlin's views more generally. It's likely another source to similar effect can be found, but that's not ground for deletion until such other source is found. So I'm ambivalent about deletion. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Equality

Feminism implies that aims for equality are inseparable. Yet feminism and equality identifies correctly that there are feminists who do not aim for equality. This article says:

"Some radical feminists called for women to govern women and men"

This is not an egalitarian request. So this either proves that not all feminism is egalitarian (meaning it should be defined by striving for rights for women, and not striving for EQUAL rights for women) or we should remove this because radicals calling for female governance could not be feminists, if we state that the feminist ball stops when equality is achieved. Ranze (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Use sources. We avoid original research. Possibly what you have in mind is already reflected in the article; if not, please find a source first. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

my edits of May 4, 2013

For some of the edits, see User talk:Jprg1966#section headings spacing, blank lines, template name case, and encoding characters. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Transphobia

How is there no mention of transphobia?

Radical feminists run blogs like pretendbians.com and openly admit that they hate and attack trans women. There are a NUMBER of sources backing this up. One quick google check will give you a large number of sources. Why is this not mentioned at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StolenBlueBox (talk • contribs) 14:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to look more carefully (or use the search function of your browser). It is mentioned in the Criticism section (and was already when you asked your question). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Contentious

Hi,

I learned very explicitly that "radical feminism" is a very controversial subject and depicted differently by authors. However, my understanding of radical feminism is that it calls for a change of society from racism, sexism, class, and homophobia, all forms of oppression, which is what makes it "radical." In that spirit, I don't think the opening part is quite right. It says: "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5]"

It is true that a lot of "cultural feminists" call themselves "radical feminists," but the two are actually distinct. So I'm not sure how accurate it is that "cultural feminism" came from "radical feminism." I might also be incorrect, but I think radical feminism doesn't view patriarchy as the fundamental oppression, so the quote might not be so accurate.

That's my opinion. Add as much salt as you want! :-)

70.72.45.131 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a point. But what we do is reflect the sources. There may well be a split among radical feminists as to what radical feminism is about. The solution with respect to Wikipedia is to find a secondary source or more for what is missing and add it to the body. If the lead needs rewriting, too, then do that, too, as long as the lead reflects the article's body.

When you say that a quotation is inaccurate, you should be sure that you mean that the source was misquoted, as that is different from the quotation not accurately reflecting radical feminism. Incorrect quotations need to be corrected but quotations that do not adequately reflect the subject need to be complemented with other quotations or with paraphrases so that the Wikipedia article as a whole covers its subject properly.

Whether some cultural feminists improperly call or called themselves radical feminists is not our decision (that is, whether it is improper is not up to us). However, if a source says that, that may be a good point to add to the article on cultural feminism, where it could be a criticism, if it's not already there, and arguably might belong in this article as well, if it's not already in it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Theory and Ideology

I think this section starts confusing "cultural feminism" with "radical feminism." It is true that radical feminists see overlapping forms of oppression as the basis of all oppression, but it would be inconsistent to think that if this is true, the domination of men over women is the first oppression and especially that *all* men dominate women, as the article states. For notice that once class enters into the picture, it will certainly be obvious that not all men can dominate all women because some men may hold a position of systemic inferiority due to their class. For instance, a male racialized slave in the US could not really oppress the wife of a slave-owning "white" woman. Other examples are obvious in today's society. I think it's important not to confuse the idea espoused by many cultural feminists--that all men dominate all women and that women should rule men--with what radical feminists like Catherine Mckinnon would say (although I think she thinks of herself as Marxist feminist).

My two cents...use salt as needed...

70.72.45.131 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Add sourced content as needed. Best wishes.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Unclear citations

There are a number of citations for 'Echols' and 'Willis' followed by a page number, the name of the books in question, or at the very least the person's first name, needs to be in there in order to follow the cite. Can anybody confirm that the books in the 'further reading' section by authors of those names are the ones being referenced? 67.172.244.16 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I generally agree with what you're saying, Wikipedia accepts that kind of style and prefers that we leave intact an accepted style already generally in use in an article. The style is used in some publications (albeit with better organization) and arguably it has a slight advantage by accommodating the moving of content within an article resulting in moving endnotes such that a more thorough referent would no longer be first. It's not my favorite style; but it's already in use and is accepted. Since there's only one work by Echols and only one by Willis, it's not considered confusing enough to need first names in the endnotes. Given that, if you want to check sources, please do, but we wouldn't generally delete citations already present unless they're faulty (e.g., if they cite wrong pages). Nick Levinson (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Undue and POV in Lead.

@Gorgi88 and NFLJunkie:, care to explain why you insist to edit war and synthesize the lead section? Note that the Burden of proof is on those who wish to restore the content, not those who wish to remove it. Ging287 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

While you're all explaining, you might explain why the sentence everyone's all het up about seems to have been constructed by picking every nasty word quoted in the criticism section and stringing them all together into a wild list of invective? I think it's clear that the lead section ought to have some discussion of the criticism section in it per WP:LEAD, but obviously, also per WP:LEAD, the material in the lead should summarize the material in the body, not cherry-pick insults with quotes around them. That's bad, bad writing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. But it was putting undue emphasis on the criticism by construing all of them together. What I was hoping would to come to a consensus about what exactly to put into the LEAD via this discussion. Ging287 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I know, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I was adding a comment to yours rather than replying to you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are serious accusations not insults. But of course a knee jerk emotional reaction out of staunch pro feminist POV will undermine any constructive editing. Gorgi88 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Attempts of constructive editing is futile while a pro feminist mob reverts every edit based on WP:JDL. Don't even try to sell it as 'neutrality'. It's not. It's you getting your way because they're are more of you. No consensus whatsoever. NFLjunkie (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So neither of you is interested in discussing content then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it even matter? Your open mind will revert anything that doesn't coincide with your already set views. Gorgi88 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that? I've never even edited this article. Never once. Why not just try discussing content?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the vibe that I'm getting. They've made no attempt in order to justify the inclusion of the content they're advocating for. My argument against is WP:DUE. The text you guys attempted to include is construed in a manner that Synthesizes the rest of the article, and the very theory of radical feminism. Ging287 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The vibe I'm getting from you is you'd water down anything that might be a bit controversial or negative about feminism. Gorgi88 (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You should read WP:CON. Consensus doesn't come from a vote, it will come out from discussing the issue in depth and with relation to Wikipedia policy --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You all seem to have POV issues. It's a touchy subject, but you won't find consensus being dismissive or combative. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So you don't want to discuss content either?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone having an issue with the content. The issue is the omission of criticism from the lead section. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody here wants to omit criticism from the lead section. Nobody. The dispute is over that particular sentence, which is not only an illiterate piece of crap, but it doesn't even summarize the criticism section. That's why we should discuss content. It's really not OK to have structurally malformed sentences in lead sections, regardless of content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. Just add a brief summary and have them stop fighting over a non issue. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How about "The movement has been criticized as being exclusionist, ignoring issues concerning race and sexuality, and even practicing transphobia." --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't practice a phobia. NFLjunkie (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well how about transprejudice? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

transphobic/transprejudiced both good. doesn't matter. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody have any problems with the following sentence: "The movement has been criticized as being exclusionist, ignoring issues concerning race and sexuality, and even practicing transprejudice." I feel it covers the significant criticisms and is written NPOV. I don't think it actually needs references if they are in the article right? Also, off topic here, but the American spelling of criticise is really ugly. What were you guys thinking? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We were thinking that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," and that these matters are more important than which side of the road we drive on or how we spell "criticize." It's working out pretty well, I'd say...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I fully acknowledge that it's a personal preference, I just prefer those soft s's you know. Also that sounds like something out of my copy of the Communist Manifesto. You should read it sometime, lots in there about men being created equal and abolishing governments when they are destructive and all that. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How exactly can a sentence be 'an illiterate piece of crap'? Gorgi88 (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's both illiterate and a piece of crap it can be fairly described as an illiterate piece of crap. There may be other circumstances under which a sentence can be an illiterate piece of crap, but they probably don't apply in this situation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Intro is a brief description of page.

I added nothing new. Just a brief description with references. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a blatant misrepresentation of what you did. What you did was add a criticism of Radical feminism with undue weight and based on poor sources, as well as some synthesis, in order to push an anti-feminist POV --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight? I summed it up. Used the same legitimate sources already in use in the page. And all I got in as response was a revert because it shouldn't start with criticism. First of all, it doesn't. It's at the end of the intro. And 2nd, Why not? It's in conflict with your POV?? It's in the section. Gorgi88 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should open this up to debate, we're not getting anywhere with this and you don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. The purpose of the article is to describe Radical Feminism not analyse it. I personally don't support Radical Feminism so no, it is not in conflict with my POV --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Should Radical Feminism feature the following criticism in its lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We've moved beyond this sentence and discussion is ongoing below

---

Requesting other perspectives in this debate as to whether the article Radical Feminism should contain the following text proposed by Gorgi88 in its lead:

"Radical feminists have been accused of being "transphobic", "racist", "classists", "antileft", "apolitical" and that radical feminism promotes a victim mentality amongst young women, inciting protests against events that have little to do with feminism."

These are the proposed references:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2011/09/radical_feminism_transphobia
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2011/08/11/how-feminism-became-a-joke
http://womenborntranssexual.com/2012/07/10/radical-feminism-is-racist-and-classist-as-well-as-transphobic-and-sex-hating
Willis, Ellen, "Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism

(Many of these are copied from the criticism section of the article and may not necessarily reflect the proposed inclusion)

--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Undue weight and synthesis of sources provided by a previous editor --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support I didn't add anything radical. I summed up in a brief description the criticism section and used the same references, which I believe were withheld because of POV issues. My edit was reverted with the following explanation Quote I don't believe the article should begin with the criticism.. Drowninginlimbo discontent with my edit is just WP:JDL Gorgi88 (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been listed at the WikiProject Gender Studies talk page[1] & WikiProject Feminism talk page[2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It certainly seems that Drowninginlimbo totally misunderstands the purpose of the lede section of articles. I'd advise reading more about Wikipedia policies in this particular area please.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel that the above text is a concise and NPOV summary of the criticism section? I don't think it should be unrepresented but it doesn't read as thought out or well-explained. Also in reply to all the 'POV' claims, I don't think we shouldn't feature the criticisms at all, but you have to give it due weight and express it with some articulacy --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support opposition is basic POV issue.NFLjunkie (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support As already stated above. Lede is there for a reason. The Undue weight doesn't hold ground in this case IMO. Radical Feminism is an extreme version of the wider movement. It will generate stronger responses. In this case you removed the criticism entirely. You can't do that. You can't just delete all criticism form the Lede, because it goes against your POV. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note I am not against there being a criticism of the movement in the lead. It says above "the following criticism in its lead". Also, for the last time, this is not my POV. I do not identify with this ideology --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well something has to be added, because the absence of criticism in the lead section does bring up the neutrality issue, especially since it's such a big part of the article. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone actually agrees with that. The problem really is that the proposed sentence is not only illiterate, stupid, and misleading, but doesn't accurately summarize the large "criticism" section as it should. Are you sure you don't want to discuss content?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because the sentence (a) omits the Harvard comma and (b) has a comma splice (albeit without a comma, since that's the one that's omitted). Perhaps some of the supporters might note that the question in this RfC is not whether there should be a summary of the criticism section in the lead section. Obviously there should be. The question is whether that actual sentence should go in the lead. I think that proper syntax is important, and could not support the addition of such an incoherent sentence irrespective of its content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue. Pasting part of the first sentence of the criticism section into the lead without giving context isn't a helpful change. The addition is worded poorly and doesn't reflect the content of the article. While the lead could be expanded to include a more thorough summary of the article (including the criticism), the version that Gorgi88/NFLjunkie have been trying to edit war in violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I'm also concerned about the tendentious nature of these edits given that they are coming from single-purpose accounts. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Since when are http://www.thefword.org.uk and http://womenborntranssexual.com reliable sources? And since when is a series of insults an analysis of issues? The forbes article is about "feminism" and there are so many different types it's pure WP:OR to say that it is describing specifically radical feminism. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note Proposed alternative criticism here --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This RFC is totally unnecessary. It's like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Some attempt at building consensus rather than bullying consensus was necessary here. As such this should be closed as unnecessary since there are multiple proposals for inclusion of criticism below - just not exactly the ones the OP wants--Cailil ^talk 10:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's a mischaracterization of the movement, conflating TERFs with radical feminists. It's UNDUE, doesn't belong in lead, and POV. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Article dated

The sources in this article are very dated. Recent (Goizueta, Cristina and Breslin, Susannah is about "feminism" in general, not radical feminism, and thus irrelevant to this article. The pro-transgender article at least notes there is some sort of current radical feminism so research from more neutral sources on what it is would be helpful for updating the article. Will have to do some... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

translation: be gentle with the criticism. So should we just erase the criticism section right of the bat? Lugnuthemvar (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's "be accurate in summary". You are mischaracterizing the statement and offering an absurd solution. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

hardly... The issue with these pages is that people with certain biases want to turn it into a wiki pamphlet. Tell me, what's a 'neutral source' for criticism of radical feminism? How can a challenge or a criticism be neutral? That doesn't make sense. There are advocates for every movement and there are those, who are critical. The only 'neutral point of view' is that of the observer, who is not involved. Lastly what was my 'absurd solution' exactly? Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I did confuse Goizueta with another article I questioned yesterday so deleted that above. Otherwise the above seems to be a reply to the criticism section, not "Article dated" section and, if so, you should make it there. My point is it's silly to only discuss and criticize material that's 20-30 years old when there is a current movement, (which also might mean more current criticism). Also, where there is replies to criticism, that should be noted as well. All of which means more research. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

classic move the goalpost. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, your comment is in fact off-topic for this thread. It's not moving the goalpost, you just chose to comment in the wrong section. However, the answer is simple. A neutral source for criticism is a neutral secondary source that describes criticism. That's basic, and not hard to find. For instance, and this is one example out of many, here we have an author who describes Elaine Denny's criticism of radical feminism. Elaine Denny's work is primary for her criticism and the linked book is secondary for Denny's criticism. Thus, although we could use Denny to provide material about criticism, it would be preferable to use Richardson to provide material about Denny's criticism. That chapter is full of such instances. There are many books like this. There are histories of feminism written precisely by your "observer, who is not involved." This is NPOV 101. Perhaps you'd do well to spend some time learning about that rather than casting aspersions like tares in the fields of Wikipedia.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually like to point something else out as well: although we require a neutral point of view (which is more of a process than a state I often think,) we do not require neutral sources - and I would in fact argue that very few if any sources are, well, actually neutral. Per NPOV, we should represent viewpoints that have been held in reliable sources in rough proportion to how often they've been held, but we in no way require neutral sources as long as the sources otherwise meet WP:RS. In this case it really shouldn't be hard to find some sources that really do pretty much come close to neutrally describing the dispute, but I view the point that we don't require neutral sources as a very important one and wanted to make it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So we wait for an eternity on the 'observer', who cites non neutral sources in his/her observations? that's BS. This is deflection due to POV 101. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense to me. Can you clarify what you mean?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignore it. i missread Carolmooredcs last postLugnuthemvar (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Alf.laylah.wa.laylah for explaining goal post reference. Anyway, I'm talking about most of the article being sourced circa mid-1980s about events of 1960s and 1970s. I'm saying even criticism can be updated, with higher quality RS that will pass at WP:RSN, of course. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 April 2014

Would someone please undo this edit (removing the POV tag), which was made after the page was protected? The person who placed the tag was briefly, erroneously blocked as a sock. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please take it up with JzG (talk · contribs) directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I brought it up with him last night. Given the note at the top of his page, I guess I should ping @DGG: as well. It's such a minor and obvious thing that I'm tempted to do it myself because there's really no argument for it not to be undone... but it's also such a minor thing that I don't view it as a big enough deal to risk controversy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the POV dispute? Happy for it to go back in if one genuinely exists. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what comment of mine is being referred to. I try to avoid disputes over tagging, but my opinion is that the POV tag is fully justified, considering the substantial amounts of synthesis, peacock terms, and judgments thruout the article. Whether or not I consider the perspective valid is irrelevant, but I have no intention of either editing or resolving disputes in this subject area DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: - I agree with DGG that the POV tag is justified, but I don't think it should matter whether or not it's justified - it should be restored for at least the duration of the full protection. You edited through full protection to remove it. At the time it was perfectly justifiable as WP:RBI, but the sock block was incorrect, so WP:RBI is no longer a good reason to have changed the page from the state it was in when it was fully protected. And @DGG: - Guy has a note on the top of his talk page that notes that he trusts your judgment implicitly w/r/t reverting admin actions. Since Guy didn't seem to be around, I pinged you to take a look at it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The initial inclusion of the POV tag relates to this discussion [3], the result of which is here [4] Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether the tag is warranted. Guy's (Jzg's) justification in removing the tag was that it had been placed by a blocked sock. Since it turns out the editor who placed the tag is not, apparently, a sock, I would expect Guy to restore the tag. Otherwise, with no valid justification for the removal now, what we're left with is simply an editor editing through protection. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree strongly with the sentiment expressed by Anthony: the page should reflect its state at the time of full protection, and the rationale for editing through the full protection no longer applies, thus, the page should be returned to its state at the time of full protection. I do also agree with several other commenters that the tag does actually belong there, but am primarily reverting Guy's edit because I believe it reflects a non-consensus edit to a fully protected page with a rationale that no longer works. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"The POV tag is justified because of X concern" is absolutely fine. "The POV tag should go back in because of $PROCESS" is not. I accept that the tag is justified, based on the comments above. But m:wrong applies. Both addition and removal were driven by agenda. We should think long and hard before bringing our internal debates in front of the reader, yes? I am completely comfortable with it being re-added based on real concerns, as expressed above. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

[5] Thank you, Kevin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Locked

Due to the edit war, I've locked the article for one week. In addition to the obvious - changes to the article should be approved by consensus if challenged - to the extent any of the material at issue touches on the men's rights movement, edits to that material are subject to probation sanctions and may be dealt with accordingly. I've chosen not to do that here at this point as so many battling editors are involved, but that doesn't preclude such sanctions in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: (Sorry for the ping, but I think it's important for you to clarify something.) This line; to the extent any of the material at issue touches on the men's rights movement, edits to that material are subject to probation sanctions and may be dealt with accordingly. What do you mean by that? If anybody adds anything to the article about the Men's Rights Movementt, they'll get a sanction? Also, could you explain to me how Radical Feminism and MRM are related in this context, and subject to the same article probation? Thanks.

EDIT: One more thing, could you put the probation notice at the top of the talk page, so that everybody who views it can know about it? I didn't realize it until you pointed it out to me. I think a notice at the top would be fair. Ging287 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

An editor brought the Men's rights movement up in their edit. Any edit to any article relating to that topic is under probation. FYI questions like this are better on Bbb23's talk page--Cailil ^talk 15:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cailil, but I don't mind answering the questions as they may benefit other users editing this page. According to WP:MRMPS, "Pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed) are subject to" sanctions. Two more comments from the sanctions page: (1) "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians" and (2) "We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people". Although I could slap a notice on this page, talk page notices are not required to impose sanctions, particularly if the editor has been previously notified of the existence of the sanctions. Many sanctions-related article talk pages (in other areas) are not templated and yet are still subject to sanctions. In this instance, it wasn't clear to me that men's rights were involved except to the extent that just about anything that involves feminism has a limited intersection with men's rights. The edit summary by NFLjunkie ("Mens Rights starts with criticism as well") was too tenuous for me. That said, administrators are not monolithic, and my point of view may not be shared by other administrators, and any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions. Finally, to you, Ging287, and to all other editors, be careful. Whenever you edit controversial areas of Wikipedia you'd better be reasonably confident that you are not violating policy, even if it is unintentional. Ultimately, the burden is on you. I think of this lock as not just a lock but also a warning to everyone that your edits may be scrutinized.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, noted. Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually this probably will become an issue at some point because there are some WP:RS about Men's Rights groups aligning with Transgender groups to protest and allegedly harass some women's groups, often calling them radical feminist, even if they don't call themselves that. (Information strangely missing from Men's rights article.) Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation does clearly say Any editor reverting any material, even if it is completely different material, twice in any 24 hour period (+/-) is subject to being blocked without warning. Should we also put a 1RR template at talk of page for those who need that extra reminder? (Obviously it helps to inform new editors once that do that second - or even first? - revert.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A proposal

A proposal follows. On reading the criticism section carefully I can see that it's a bunch of repetitive crap which was probably the subject of a class assignment at some point, thus explaining its incoherence. However, here is a proposal for a summary of its main points, such as they are:

Radical feminists have been criticized for emphasizing sex-based discrimination at the expense of race- and class-based discrimination, for being unwilling to work with men to effect change through political channels, and for holding essentialist views of the nature of gender. They have been criticized regarding gender-essentialism by transsexual rights advocates in particular, who claim that radical feminists, among other things, may not accept transgendered women as real women.

Alice Echols and Ellen Willis, herself a former radical feminist, in particular, have criticized radical feminism for arguing that male domination of women was the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for the propensity of its adherents to minimize the impact on their lives of their own white middle-class privilege, and for its marginalization of lesbian sexuality.

I haven't bothered to wikify anything yet, as we should agree on the content first.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe move the "In particular", as well as themselves rather than herself, so it reads "In particular, Alice Echols and Ellen Willis, who are themselves former radical feminists, have criticized radical feminism for arguing that male domination of women was the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for the propensity of its adherents to minimize the impact on their lives of their own white middle-class privilege, and for its marginalization of lesbian sexuality." --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise all good. I'm looking forward to having this sorted. I'm also glad you didn't include the internet criticism. It's one thing writing a terrible but well-crafted and researched gender studies book, and another writing a terrible gender studies article that doesn't go through the editorial and publishing process --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How is this:

Radical feminists have been criticized for emphasizing sex-based discrimination at the expense of race- and class-based discrimination, for being unwilling to work with men to effect change through political channels, and for holding essentialist views of the nature of gender. They have been criticized regarding gender-essentialism by transsexual rights advocates in particular, who claim that radical feminists, among other things, may not accept transgendered women as real women.

In particular, Alice Echols and Ellen Willis, who are themselves former radical feminists, have criticized radical feminism for arguing that male domination of women was the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for the propensity of its adherents to minimize the impact on their lives of their own white middle-class privilege, and for its marginalization of lesbian sexuality.

Does it need to be referenced or are the references in Criticisms adequate for its notability? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your version is fine, except that probably more stuff can be wikilinked. I prefer not to have references in the lead because I think it signifies an inadequate summary of the material in the body. Others disagree with me on this, so we may want sources. After today's edit-war, I am certain, though, that it'd be better to let this sit here at least until tomorrow before putting it into the article so that others may comment if they wish.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you concerning references. It generally suggests either the lead is synthesising or the article doesn't contain all the necessary information on the topic. That's a good point though, I'll leave it and see if we get many responses --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You want two paragraphs of criticism added to the current one paragraph lead? One sentence noting there is criticism (and on terms most readers can understand) is all that is really necessary. They can read the section if they are interested. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fair, feel free to make a more concise proposal. As it stands the article is about 25Kb prose, of which we have about 6.6Kb criticism. The lead's about 1.5Kb, but should be longer I think. So right now criticism is about 25% of the article, but would be about 38% of the lead if we added the whole proposal. Personally I think the transgender stuff is much less important, and wouldn't have even put it in except for the screechy SPAs. How about:

Radical feminists have been criticized for emphasizing sex-based discrimination at the expense of race- and class-based discrimination, for being unwilling to work with men to effect change through political channels, and for holding essentialist views of the nature of gender. In particular, Alice Echols and Ellen Willis, who are themselves former radical feminists, have criticized radical feminism for arguing that male domination of women was the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for the propensity of its adherents to minimize the impact on their lives of their own white middle-class privilege, and for its marginalization of lesbian sexuality.

That's about the same proportion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That text makes sense to me and seems both well sourced and duely weighted--Cailil ^talk 11:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with statements that minimize the importance of radical feminist stances on transgendered persons. The issue has proved a major point of on-going friction with other streams of feminist thought and the incredibly vocal TERF faction do seem to be defining ideology on the matter within radical feminism, from Janice Raymond onwards.

P.S. You'll note I'm not an SPA. :P Dolescum (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dolescum: TERFs are a fringe subset of radical feminism. Though vocal, they are in the minority for sure. It would be like mentioning WBC on Christianity (well, not that extreme, but you get the analogy). EvergreenFir (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sorry, while I'm certainly happy to agree that TERF's are noisy in the extreme, I find the statement that they're a fringe subset of the ideology disingenuous. I've seen far too many discussions in feminist circles about the influence of such attitudes have within wider feminist groupings (London Reclaim the Night is an example that springs immediately to mind) to discount those views as the ravings of a few fringe cranks. Dolescum (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Logically speaking, lead criticisms should more logically comport with lead descriptions. Being in favor of short leads generally, I'd change it to:

Over the years radical feminists have been criticized for arguing that male domination of women is the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for ignoring white middle-class privilege and emphasizing sex-based discrimination at the expense of race- and class-based discrimination, for being unwilling to work with men to effect change through political channels, and for its marginalization of [marginalizing] lesbian sexuality.

I say over the years because lesbians are some of most active radical feminists today, per "dated" discussion below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's nicely done. I support it. I would strike "its" from the last sentence and change "marginalization" to "marginalizing" since the subject of the sentence is "radical feminists," not "radical feminism": "and for its marginalization marginalizing of lesbian sexuality." Either that or change "its" to "their": "and for its their marginalization of lesbian sexuality."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would go for the latter with "their" included for reader comprehension. It reads well though, hopefully everyone is happy with it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Marginalizing" more grammatically consistent so made change above. Yeah, consensus? :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering our POV we seem to be the only editors that are actually engaging in writing, editing and including a criticism of the movement, so yeah, I'd say there's consensus Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to let it sit for a few days if no one minds, just to see if other editors want to weigh in. I think it's important to do this given that the article is locked for now anyway and we'll have to get an administrator to make the edit. I think I'll start a separate section on it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Also am I allowed to remove the request for comments? I did start it and the debate seems to have moved from that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Current version of proposal, is there consensus?

Here's what we've come up with so far, and kudos to all involved for good, collegial work:

Over the years radical feminists have been criticized for arguing that male domination of women is the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for ignoring white middle-class privilege and emphasizing sex-based discrimination at the expense of race- and class-based discrimination, for being unwilling to work with men to effect change through political channels, and for marginalizing lesbian sexuality.

I support this, as do a number of editors upsection. There have so far been no dissents. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. No need to drag it out any longer. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I support this Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I have stated my reasons further up the take page. Dolescum (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming your reasons noted, do you have a problem with this material other than that it doesn't deal with transgendered issues? If not, perhaps you can make an additive proposal rather than opposing this content per se?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a vastly better researcher than I am writer so apologies if this is not the most literate contribution. Might I suggest:

Over the years radical feminists have been criticized for arguing that male domination of women is the ultimate source of all forms of oppression, for ignoring white middle-class privilege and emphasizing sex-based discrimination at the expense of race- and class-based discrimination, for some activists transphobia, for being unwilling to work with those whom they perceive to be men to effect change through political channels, and for marginalizing lesbian sexuality.

Doubtless my choice of words is poor, but I hope that would show my thought process and provide a convenient basis for discussion. Dolescum (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with this. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm good with the text put forward by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I think the points raised by Dolescum are addressed in above conversations--Cailil ^talk 14:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cailil. I also want to state that the summary isn't there to list every accusation the movement or members of the movement have faced, but rather to equate the most significant and frequent ones, focusing on ones mentioned in the article. We discuss the issue of transphobia above (I'm not sure but it's possible that you are mistaking 'TERF's for Radical Feminists) Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think the entire article probably needs rewriting and better sourcing before we think about improving the introduction. This discussion has brought up too many issues with it. However, the introduction suggested by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah sums up the current Criticism section most appropriately Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

TERF

Could someone please add a section on TERF Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists ? 172.248.218.48 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you maybe read the Talk page before posting? There is a lengthy discussion about just this directly above your message Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)