Christina Hoff Sommers

[Earthy Astringent]

Christina Hoff Sommers (T-H-L), a darling of MRA's, Gamergaters and who draws the ire of "academic" feminists is one of those hold-the-fort articles in Wikipedia's Gender War. It would be helpful if someone created a category and label such articles so it would easier for people to participate in the games, though there is a certain charm in stalking edit histories, it's so much more personal.

What's at stake? Whether or not the article should call Ms. Sommers a feminist. The talk page is a shitshow.

[Poetlister]

It would help if people could agree on what feminism is, but that's unlikely for the foreseeable future.

[Moral Hazard]

Fear not, gentle reader, in case you worried that Wikipedia's feminism would fall apart after the departure of Ironholds (T-C-L) from the WMF.

White knight Binksternet (T-C-L) has searched the internet to find sources that question whether Sommers be feminist.

[arkon]

This is one of the stranger lines for the SJW-inclined group to try to hold (awww yesss, bring it on people who hate that acronym).

[Earthy Astringent]

Fear not, gentle reader, in case you worried that Wikipedia's feminism would fall apart after the departure of Ironholds (T-C-L) from the WMF.

White knight Binksternet (T-C-L) has searched the internet to find sources that question whether Sommers be feminist.

I've always associated the term with supporting equality with men. Using that loose definition most Western societies would have a large percentage of their population who would consider themselves a feminist. Radical academia created Phyllis Schlafly just as much as did the ERA.

Looks like Binky left no rock unturned in his search for sources. I fail to see how English and Drama department professors opinions on Sommer's fem-cred are at all relevant.

[Kingsindian]

I don't see what the problem is. The talk page discussion looks completely sensible, rational and civil to me. If one wants to argue on whether "X is a feminist", this is the way one needs to argue. Obviously, there's no common definition of "feminist", so one has to see what other people write.

Sommers is already called an "equity feminist" in the second paragraph of the lead, distinguished from "gender feminist". For some reason people want to put it as a primary descriptor. It is the flip side of people trying to label Arch Getty a "revisionist historian" or Gideon Levy a "leftist journalist". Usually such things are simply POV-pushing which should be resisted.

Of course, people who find the whole notion of defining who is a feminist is silly will find the talk page discussion silly. But you can say that about Pokemon as well. Let people who are interested in the topic argue about things which they find important.

[Jim]

Let people who are interested in the topic argue about things which they find important.

I'd generally agree with that as a philosophical approach. The problem for an encyclopedia, of course, is that letting two or more "sides" who have fervently hacked to bits some issue that is actually unimportant proceed to include in an article whatever contrived compromise they fought to a standstill to arrive at can result in undue, awkward drivel in articles on a matter about which the article should quite possibly say little, or even nothing at all. The "nothing at all" option will seldom occur to the ardent protagonists. I'm not saying that's the case here, just pointing out a potential downside to the generality. Of course, what is actually unimportant will always be subjective, but should probably not be solely determined by what can often be the invested minorities who care enough about it to argue the toss. There is no editorial oversight, though, so hard to solve that one...

[Earthy Astringent]

I don't see what the problem is. The talk page discussion looks completely sensible, rational and civil to me.

Because you participate there, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Stepping through the archives, it looks like Bink is on one of his usual crusades. I haven't looked at ANI in a long time. Is he still reporting new editors and ips?

[Kingsindian]

I don't see what the problem is. The talk page discussion looks completely sensible, rational and civil to me.

Because you participate there, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I have the page on my watchlist, but I can't remember the last time I commented there (apart from just now, of course).

[DHeyward]

Is it irony that anyone can claim to be female and disputing it will earn a block but identifying as a feminist needs a challenge coin and secret handshake?

[Midsize Jake]

Is it irony that anyone can claim to be female and disputing it will earn a block but identifying as a feminist needs a challenge coin and secret handshake?

Only if you believe gender and ideology are the same thing. Since they're really not, you could be accused of making a false analogy, but probably only by people who don't believe they're the same. The real question then becomes whether or not those who do believe they're the same are individually capable of correctly recognizing and appreciating irony in more conventional (i.e., not so politically loaded) contexts. If they can, then that in itself would be ironic, but I wouldn't bet the farm on this if I were you.

[The Garbage Scow]

An uninvolved editor proposed a reasonable compromise that could be sourced and would have resolved the actual issue. They were taken to task for their use of caps and for proposing a "false balance".

That isn't an article talk page, it's an ideological POV battlefield.