# Talk:Independent Women's Forum

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Errandal, Jfunsten.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems as if some of the material in the history section is passing judgement. Perhaps it should be moved to the criticism section.

Agreed Njerseyguy 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the last change for POV was warranted, and was support the person who wrote it in a RV.  It simply states facts.--Epeefleche 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed info about the funding organizations that was messy, seemed out of place, and offered no sources. I am guessing that at least some of that material came from other articles, but Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia per WP:RS. I am also not convinced that this information needs to be in this article at all since we have articles about those organizations that are linked from here. DickClarkMises 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(In re: this edit by User:TreveX)
It is not clear to me that SourceWatch can be used for this claim under WP:RS. Citing an unsourced assertion on SourceWatch is like citing an unsourced assertion in another Wikipedia article--they are both freely licensed. If some third party has noted in a reliable source that IWF's donors are composed of a "significant" number of conservative donors, we can include it. Asserting this without a reliable source is a misuse of the encyclopedic voice in my view. Such potentially controversial views should always be attributed to a reliable source. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to Media Transparency. Is this okay? TreveXtalk 02:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well written: This article could explain some concepts, like the difference betwenn equity feminism and gender feminism, Title IX, very briefly. What does the Women's Educational Equity Act do? What is the Duke University lacrosse scandal? I'm not necessarily asking for full paragraphs of context, just enough to aid basic understanding. The funding and board member sections could be converted into prose, perhaps by adding information on the organisations or personnel concerned.
Factually accurate: Can we please have a source for the first sentence?
Broad in coverage: PASS
Neutral point of view: In a few sections, we need something balancing out IWF's positions. What would their opponents say to their positions on Title IX or 'advocacy for school choice'. Why do their critics deride them as anti-feminist? Why did the FMF object to the state department funding? I've just done a quick google and it seems that the organisation is somewhat controversial and I don't think this has been dealt with fully here. It's also widely characterised as a conservative movement organisation - this should be in there somewhere.
Stable: PASS
Illustrated with images: PASS
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. TreveXtalk 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


### Queries/Responses to Good Article Reviewer
Well written:
Slightly expanded the Duke University Lacrosse section lead to provide context: [5]
Co-opted some material from the equity feminism article to cover Hoff Sommers' distinction between equity and gender feminism: [6]
Factually accurate: The first sentence is supported by the other citations in close vicinity to it. I personally think this is probably within the bounds of Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, but as that style guideline suggests this is really something to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Let's go through the assertions of the first sentence:
"non-profit" and "non-partisan": This has to be true because the organization is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. This is cited in the very first source, in the infobox at page right. Both of these assertions are factually and legally accurate, and are supported by documents in the public record.
"research and educational": Covered in the section on Reaction to radical feminism.
"domestic and foreign policy": All policy that isn't domestic is foreign, right? This seems to be true even on a purely philosophical level. More on point, of course, is the fact that the article cites numerous sources discussing both domestic and foreign IWF programs, so this is supported by reliable sources.
"of concern to women": Source is cited in the second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead for this assertion.
NPOV:
I'll see if I can find more on the Title IX, which I agree could be expanded if we could find relevant sources. The problem I have encountered is that most sources I am finding criticize the elimination of Title IX, which IWF doesn't advocate (see sources in that subsection). I haven't been able to find any direct criticism of IWF's Title IX position.
The school choice subsection does include discussion of NOW's alternative view on the topic, which I included to allow readers to investigate further the positions of prominent organizations discussing the topic, and to provide context that better explains IWF's tactics--in this case, criticizing a notable feminist organization's publicly voiced policy position.
I expanded the FMF criticism to include a characterization of the IWF as "right-wing." This, in combination with the material in the "origin and history" section should be adequate to give the reader some idea of how critics place the IWF on the political spectrum: [7]
The fact that so many notable criticisms are cited speaks for itself. To further label the organization controversial based on that fact would be a violation of WP:SYN.
Thanks for all the good editorial suggestions. I think the article is better for your having made them. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


### Gender/Equity feminism
I really prefer this version:

The group promotes an equity feminist view—called antifeminist by critics—that is contrary to what IWF National Advisory Board Chairman Christina Hoff Sommers describes as the more prevalent gender feminism.  She defines equity feminism as an ideology that aims for full civil and legal equality and distinguish it from gender feminism, which she describes as the idea of much of modern academic feminist theory and the feminist movement which aims at the total abolition of gender roles and structure of the society which they claim is still dominated by patriarchal structures.
...to this one:

The group advocates what is described, in the terminology of the IWF National Advisory Board Chairman Christina Hoff Sommers, as 'equity feminism' as distinct from 'gender feminism'. Equity feminism is held to "[demand] for women what it demands for everyone -- fairness and equal opportunity" in contrast with gender feminism, as espoused by some other women's organisations, which focuses on perceived issues around gender roles and patriarchy,  "[thriving] on the myth that American women are the oppressed 'second sex'." This view has been described as anti-feminist by critics.
The first one just seems easier to read, and it isn't clear to me that the second one is as appropriate for the lead as is the first one. The articles on equity feminism and gender feminism adequately cover these topics, if the reader wishes to further investigate those ideological distinctions. The quotations seem to me to obfuscate rather than explicate the ideas here. Those quotes would be good for the equity feminism article, though. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that 'equity feminism' to be one of the ideological pillars of the IWF. If this is the case then the lead has to outline this clearly, albeit briefly. The intention of the rewrite was to address this. My specific concerns with the first formulation are as follows:
It isn't clear what the difference is between equity/gender feminism.
The lead should be clear that the idea of 'equity feminism' is one conceived and developed by Sommers, not just that she is outlining it on behalf of IWF.
The Ruth Connif article cited never mentions either of these terms specifically.
The phrase "which she describes as the idea of much of modern academic feminist theory and the feminist movement" is very wooly and the weakest part of the whole lead. I don't know because I haven't read the source (it's in print not online) but that whole sentence sounds like paraphrasing, which is difficult with such hefty concepts. These all have separate articles of their own, as you've noted! This is why I shifted towards the direct quotations but maybe we can find another way around this?
I know what I rephrased wasn't perfect, but felt it went some way to addressing the concerns above. Perhaps we could agree on a wording which doesn't use those quotations? TreveXtalk 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how about this:
The group advocates "equity feminism," a term first used by IWF National Advisory Board Chairman Christina Hoff Sommers to describe an ideology that aims for full civil and legal equality for women. She used the term to distinguish this view from gender feminism, which aims at the total abolition of gender roles and features of society perceived as patriarchal. According to Sommers, the gender feminist view "thrives on the myth that American women are the oppressed 'second sex'." Sommers' equity feminism has been described as anti-feminist by critics.
I think that hits all the points we want. I don't think we should say that Sommers invented equity feminism, because the IWF folks claim that theirs is the more direct descendant of early 20th C. feminism. Saying that Sommers devised the ideology would be a violation of NPOV, since this is part of the basic controversy. I think it is best to simply note that Sommers first used the term "equity feminist." How does this wording look to you? DickClarkMises (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I dropped the above version into the article pending further revision. DickClarkMises (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Provided Sommers says "total abolition" I'm happy with this. What's the exact quote? TreveXtalk 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The person who wrote that verbiage (originally at the equity feminism article) was not directly quoting, but here is what I believe he or she was citing from page 22 of the Sommers book:
Heilbrun, Steinem, and other current feminist notables ride this First Wave [of equity feminism] for its popularity and its moral authority, but most of them adhere to a new, more radical, "Second Wave" doctrine: that women, even modern American women, are in thrall to "a system of male dominance" variously referred to as "heteropatriarchy" or the sex/gender system. According to one feminist theorist, the sex/gender system is "that complex process whereby bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined for command, the other to obey." Sex/gender feminism ("gender feminism" for short) is the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders. But it lacks a grass roots constituency.
(From p. 23) ...Kate Millet's Sexual Politics was critical in moving feminism in this direction. It taught women that politics was essentially sexual and that even so-called democracies were male hegemonies: "However muted its present appearance may be, sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps the most pervasive ideology of our culture and provides its most fundamental concept of power."
The New Feminists began to direct their energies toward getting women to join in the common striggle against patriarchy, to view society through the sex/gender prism. When a women's feminist consciousness is thus "raised," she learns to identify her personal self with her gender. She sees relations to men in political terms ("the personal is the political"). This "insight" into the nature of male/female relations makes the gender feminist impatient with piecemeal liberal reformist solutions and leads her to strive for a more radical transformation of our society than earlier feminists had envisioned.
[From p. 24] ...We hear very little today about how women can join with men on equal terms to contribute to a universal human culture. Instead, feminist ideology has taken a divisive, gynocentric turn, and the emphasis now is on women as a political class whose interests are at odds with the interests of men. Women must be loyal to women, united in their principled hostility to the males who seek to hold fast to their patriarchal privileges and powers.
I would be fine with cutting the word "total" if it makes you uncomfortable, but it seems accurate to me with regards to what Sommers was arguing in the above passage. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The phrase that sticks out for me is "prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders". How about:
"[...] gender feminism, which she describes as "the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders", offering a strident opposition to traditional gender roles and patriarchal societal structures."
Once we've got this sorted I reckon we're nearly done! :-D TreveXtalk 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here is the diff on my latest try at a consensus version: [8]. What do you say? DickClarkMises (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 29, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.TreveXtalk 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that their distinguishing feature is their adherence to what they describe as equity feminism rather than gender feminism. This is given significant coverage in the lead, which is important. (SeeTalk:Independent_Women's_Forum#Gender.2FEquity_feminism above) The assessment by critical sources that the organization is "conservative" is not given short shrift in the article. This POV claim, which is notable enough, is covered by references to the Media Transparency source and others. However, I think calling the organization "conservative" in the lead sentence is potentially confusing and glosses over what is a more sophisticated position. I think using the encyclopedic voice to call the organization "conservative" raises WP:NPOV questions. DickClarkMises (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that a failure to clearly indicate that this is first and foremost a conservative political organization is a distortion of their entire history and policy. We must, of course, be polite and NPOV; but I don't feel that the omission of this milquetoast-mild description of the primary reason for the organization's existence is truly NPOV. It's not like I'm proposing we call them a front group, enablers, faux-feminists, or anything like that; their entire board is made up of prominent conservative (indeed, in the interest of truth I would say reactionary and neoconservative) women, as their bios make clear; and the organizations policies reflect that. The current lede tiptoes around that elephant in the room. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My point is that this is a controversial assertion, not a situation where everyone agrees. If you know of some source where they self-reference in this way I would be inclined to go with you on this, but I am not aware of such. Pigeonholing them as "conservative" when some would clearly argue with that characterization of the organization (since we are talking about IWF in this article, not merely the various persons associated with it) is a POV assertion, no matter how minor it may be in your opinion. I am making a point about the kind of assertion (POV), not the degree to which it is of that kind (probably minor). The term "anti-feminist" is used in the lead, but it is properly attributed to a critical source so as to avoid what would otherwise be a POV bear-trap. DickClarkMises (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with OrangeMike, and fail to see where it is "controversial" to call prominent conservatives "conservatives" when the label is self-imposed. In other words, the people on the board of IWF call themselves "conservative." They are also often refered to as "conservative" in reliable sources:  http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kasic200504190749.asp --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the organization, not about all the particular positions or affinities of people who are associated with it. Do we or do we not have a source showing that the IWF presents itself as a conservative organization? My contention is that this is a controversial claim, and that it should be clearly attributed to a reliable source. Finding a source that says that one or several board members are conservative is not enough. I am sure I could point out several country clubs with conservative or liberal dominated membership, but that would hardly warrant calling the the country club "conservative" or "liberal." Such a logical leap would be WP:OR. Same here. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've asked the GA reviewer, TreveX, to weigh in since he had previously gotten pretty acquainted with the subject matter.  DickClarkMises (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.  I'm not sure (on a theoretical level) how you can separate an organization that exists purely as a means of gathering people of like-minds from the people who make up the organization.  However, I'm happy to provide sources:
"Injecting a woman's voice: conservative women's organizations, gender consciousness, and the expression of women's policy preferences" Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  Oct, 2002
Elinor Burkett, The Right Women: A Journey Through the Heart of Conservative America, Scribner, ; ASIN: 0684833085, March 1998. (This book looks at the IWF, as well as other conservative women's groups).
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22261.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96sep/eburkett/eburkett.htm
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The Atlantic article says that IWF was formed as a home for "politically homeless" women who did not identify with the  existing conservative women's groups:
The "Merge Right" party was in fact a fundraiser thrown by Lassiter and her friends for an existing group, the Independent Women's Forum, a think tank created in 1992 by and for women who found themselves politically homeless--women who believe that the important feminist battles have been won. For them, the liberal National Organization of Women was definitely out. Concerned Women for America and other traditional conservative women's groups weren't much better: too Christian, too focused on abortion. IWF members fall somewhere in the vast ideological expanse between Gloria Steinem and Phyllis Schlafly.
I think this description is broad enough to raise some flags about simply labeling the organization "conservative" in the lead without qualification. Such labeling is also problematic given the Wikipedia style guide's suggestion (in Wikipedia:STYLE#Opportunities_for_commonality) that contributors use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences. As is immediately apparent upon reviewing the Wikipedia article on conservatism (see especially Conservatism#Conservatism_in_different_countries), applying the term generally to an organization is likely to result in confusion among international readers for whom "conservative" might have a meaning contrary to the one meant here. Such broad, confusing labels aren't obviously useful in my opinion, especially when a reader can get the basic message I think you are trying to convey simply by looking at the associated figures (some prominently featured in the article images). I don't think that Wikipedia should be used as a platform to promote any particular POV with regards to political spectrum designations. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The citations for the following sentence are to the IWF itself:

In keeping with the organization's slogan, which states that "All Issues are Women's Issues," IWF is an active participant in policy discussions not only about traditional women's issues like domestic violence, parental rights, property rights, and education, but also such topics as national defense, health care, and foreign policy.

The IWF notion of what are "traditional women's issues" and what other women's organizations see as "traditional women's issues" are not the same.  I therefore will replace the sentence with the following:

In keeping with the organization's slogan, which states that "All Issues are Women's Issues," IWF is an active participant in policy discussions not only about what the IWF believes characterizes are traditional women's issues, but also such topics as national defense, health care, and foreign policy.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the second version if we can drop "believes" for "characterizes" or some other term that works in the organizational context. Organizations don't "believe" anything, and the use here seems awfully close to WP:WEASEL. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Since we are clearly attributing the characterization of "traditional women's issues" I think we can rightfully include the list. Any objection? DickClarkMises (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful to see the document that this list is taken from - I can't seem to find it.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I know I took it from somewhere, but I will probably have to go back in the edit history to see where it originally came from (things were moved around quite a bit in the GA review process). I've got a couple of classes this afternoon and evening, but I will work on finding it after that. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
So after perusing the article history, it looks like I started out by listing just parental rights and domestic violence. After some consideration either myself or someone else realized that this was an inaccurate assessment of what earlier feminists were fighting for, so the list was expanded. According to the Women's rights article (citing what seems to be a scholarly source), Issues commonly associated with notions of women's rights include, though are not limited to, the right: to bodily integrity and autonomy; to vote (universal suffrage); to hold public office; to work; to fair wages or equal pay; to own property; to education; to serve in the military or be conscripted; to enter into legal contracts; and to have marital, parental and religious rights. I think that the word "traditional" in its present use may indeed be problematic because it may imply not merely historical comparison, but rather a sentimental comparison favorable to the issues described as "traditional." How would the following version strike you?:
As the organization's slogan—"All Issues are Women's Issues"—suggests, IWF members seek to participate in policy discussions not only about issues commonly referred to by the heading "women's rights," such as political equality, freedom of contract, property rights, education, and other civil rights, but also about such topics as national defense and foreign policy.
The assertion of interest in the latter topics can be found on the organization website here, and the list is my best short summary of the linked article's list of issues commonly identified as relating to "women's rights." What do you think? DickClarkMises (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi DCM, thank you for getting back to me.  The problem we have here is editorialization.  What is relevant is what the IWF includes in the category "traditional women's rights issues" - obviously they have a different stances from the "traditional"/liberal version of what is "women's rights".  So, what is importnat here is how IWF categorizes the difference between themselves and other organizations, not what wiki editors think of as "women's rights."  I like your edit, but I would propose one change:
As the organization's slogan—"All Issues are Women's Issues"—suggests, IWF members seek to participate in policy discussions not only about issues commonly referred to by the heading "women's rights" and other civil rights, but also about such topics as national defense and foreign policy.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that version works for me, since the list is accessible via the internal link. I'll use the source I found here for attribution. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a wide gap between what the IWF calls "radical" feminism and what scholars call radical feminism.  The IWF is generally viewed as countering liberal feminism - that is liberal groups like the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority Foundation among others.  I think we can come up with a way of stating this discrepancy in the article.  I will try... let me know what you think. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source supporting what you say is "generally viewed." IWF describes itself as opposing radical feminism. I don't think we should say that this is true. According to this source, Sommers distinguished between radical and liberal feminism. However, I think we can certainly report their self-description. If there are good reliable sources making the point about IWF really countering liberal feminism rather than only radical feminism, they would be great for providing a more rounded view. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi DCM, Please explain which references you do not agree should be included in the article:

The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is a conservative, non-profit, non-partisan research and educational institution focused on domestic and foreign policy issues of concern to women. Scholars have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism. 

Thank you for your participation. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Heather higgins.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NFCC rationale for the use in this article has been added at Image talk:Heather higgins.gif. DickClarkMises (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, DickClarkMises mostly-reverts an edit of mine.
The article reports a claim by MediaTransparency that IWF is bankrolled by "the conservative movement". MediaTransparency is labeled "left wing". But this description is sourced to the "World Journalism Institute". I'd never heard of the WJI. Turns out that it's a Christian organization. May this not be pointed out? DickClarkMises has removed the link to it, so the reader is not helped to see what WJI is. I read in the article on WJI that it's based in "The King's College", whose political slant may be suggested by the names of its "Houses"; these include Churchill, Reagan, and Thatcher; but not Attlee, FDR or [Ken] Livingstone. My guess is that WJI itself is right-wing, but this is only a guess; let's just have a bit more media transparency and link to the article on the WJI so people can judge for themselves. Tama1988 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit should not be repeated, the CCRC is not a publishing company, it is a men's rights organization that picks up news stories that support its POV and puts them up on their website (of uncertain copyright legality).  The best source is always the original publisher, because there is no concerns over editing or spin.  The IWF is sufficiently notable that their opinion can be represented on the page, as is Carrie Lukas'.  CCRC on the other hand, is a barely notable organization that misrepresents itself as about "children's rights" when it is actually about men's rights, is wildly, wildly partisan, tends to "highlight" the parts of articles that are "important" and has a series of dubious "analysis" pieces.  The original source is clearly superior and more appropriate to link to.  As it says on WP:CONV, "It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes."  The best way to do this is to link to the original copy, which is readily available.  There is never a good reason to link to a different copy when the original is available.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DickClarkMises, thank you for rewording. I am appalled that the healthcare video wasn't in a Wikipedia "GA". Anything you can do to tone me down is just fine. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Iron sharpens iron! Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Independent Women's Forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070621014646/http://www.iwf.org:80/iraq/default.asp to http://www.iwf.org/iraq/default.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080110231521/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=N2ZiZTg0N2ZhYmUzN2Y1OGVlNTg4NTg3MjhjMDY0ZmQ= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ZiZTg0N2ZhYmUzN2Y1OGVlNTg4NTg3MjhjMDY0ZmQ=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Independent Women's Forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070713021252/http://organizenow.net:80/cco/right/antifem.html to http://organizenow.net/cco/right/antifem.html
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828194143/http://iwf.org/iwfmedia/show/18958.html to http://www.iwf.org/iwfmedia/show/18958.html
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930041734/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-lukas_15edi.ART.State.Edition1.4306e69.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-lukas_15edi.ART.State.Edition1.4306e69.html
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050206235931/http://www.feminist.org:80/news/newsbyte/printnews.asp?id=8669 to http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/printnews.asp?id=8669
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to do a bit of review of the article on where it is right now
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
Almost all of the facts are referenced. 
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
This article seems fairly neutral. Nothing really distracted me, except the comment on Obama being like a dishonest boyfriend. I am not really sure where that came from. 
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article seems very neutral, but it fails to bring in some opponents point of view about the article. This makes the article a little lopsided. 
Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
There are some neutral and some biased sources. I am not really sure that this bias is fully addressed. 
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
There is a lot of information on IWF positions, but not about the opposition to the group. There is also very little on health and they do have policies based in health. 
Bre579 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Independent Women's Forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iwf.org/experts/default.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806113404/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ZiZTg0N2ZhYmUzN2Y1OGVlNTg4NTg3MjhjMDY0ZmQ%3D
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Independent Women's Forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914004541/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/CulturalStudies/WomensStudies/HistoryPoliticsSociety/?view=usa&ci=9780195331813 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/CulturalStudies/WomensStudies/HistoryPoliticsSociety/?view=usa&ci=9780195331813
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914004541/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/CulturalStudies/WomensStudies/HistoryPoliticsSociety/?view=usa&ci=9780195331813 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/CulturalStudies/WomensStudies/HistoryPoliticsSociety/?view=usa&ci=9780195331813
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917171749/http://www.iwf.org/iwfmedia/show/21946.html to http://www.iwf.org/iwfmedia/show/21946.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212051721/http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/541670627/popup/1 to http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/541670627/popup/1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The article does not mention their views on trans people. It has attracted some coverage, even in international media. I think this might merit inclusion, probably as a sentence or two worked onto the existing content rather than as its own section. If so, here are a few sources that could be used:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/oklahoma-ap-kevin-stitt-oklahoma-city-lia-thomas-b2385867.html
https://msmagazine.com/2024/05/15/meet-the-anti-feminist-womens-group-leveraging-their-independence-to-convince-americans-to-vote-republican/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/rightwing-group-anti-trans-messaging-swing-states-womens-bill-of-rights
https://michiganadvance.com/2024/08/06/rogers-signs-pledge-from-anti-trans-group-to-defend-womens-sports/
DanielRigal (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)