Talk:Feminazi

message: I can't see any problem with neutrality here. I'm going to remove the neutrality banner. Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think that consensus has been reached here? Per Template:POV#When_to_remove, the template should not be removed until "consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard" is reached. —Srid🍁 22:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it been removed since I posted this comment? I'm waiting for consensus. Calm down. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You did remove it, which I reverted. And then you posted this comment. If you are indeed "waiting for consensus", why not just wait ... instead of coming here, and creating a new section stating that you are "going to remove the neutrality banner" just because you don't "see any problem with neutrality here" (as if to suggest that only your opinion counts)? —Srid🍁 22:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down. Bacondrum (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how you added the notice and you're the only one who thinks it should be there, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Provide evidence of bias or let the removal stand - adding  a neutrality tag without good cause looks like an attempt to game Wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I've removed the tag; there has been no satisfactory explanation of the problem itself. What little substantive discussion there has been about neutrality issues makes it clear that  has got the wrong end of the stick about what sources do and don't say and what WP:BALANCE means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. No case was ever made for adding it in the first place. Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: There's too many citations in the body. these two sentences, for example have 5 citations each, some of which are repeated in the same sentence. 5 citations for one sentence seems excessive:
:The American conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who popularized the term,[3][4][5] credited the university professor Thomas Hazlett with coining it.[4][6]
and 
:Limbaugh, who has been vocally critical of the feminist movement,[7] stated that the term feminazi refers to "radical feminists" whose goal is "to see that there are as many abortions as possible",[1][4][8] a small group of "militants"[7] whom he characterizes as having a "quest for power" and a "belief that men aren't necessary".
Does anyone object to me thinning some of these?
Bacondrum (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think three citations per statement is excessive. The ones that are repeated in the same sentence are there to preserve text–source integrity, where some sources support the entire sentence, and others only part of it. If there's too much visual clutter, we could try bundling some citations.The density of footnotes stems partly from the fact that most coverage of the topic consists of brief, passing mentions. That makes it hard to write coherent prose that's also reliably-sourced. The paucity of focused, in-depth coverage makes me wonder whether the topic shouldn't be merged into, say, . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, I agree it probably should be merged - I find the lack of quality sources on a lot of these culture wars articles leads to these kinds of articles being a bit of a dogs breakfast. Antifeminism does seem the right place. Bacondrum (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There were several added by a recent editor for [4]. I think many of those can be removed. It has a quote in the ref so maybe it can apply where it is supporting that quote. There were more cites in older editions and there are two sets because the sentences got shorten and glued together. I had found a usage by Hazlett in 1987 and some dictionary had a 1989 usage. There were many other cites in the past version, but this article has much churning. Because this article is controversial, having extra cites are okay, just better and more diverse ones are needed. StrayBolt (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better is always better, of course. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "more diverse" citations. Trimming less-reliable ones lowers the diversity of sources even as it improves the quality of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Excess citations

message: The redirect National Feminism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:National Feminism]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]