Talk:Independent Women's Forum

message: 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)
thread_title: POV?

message: 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)
thread_title: Funding info

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

message: *Well written: 
**Slightly expanded the Duke University Lacrosse section lead to provide context:  
**Co-opted some material from the equity feminism article to cover Hoff Sommers' distinction between equity and gender feminism: 
*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: 
**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)
thread_title: Queries/Responses to Good Article Reviewer

message: 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.</div>TreveXtalk 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Radical vs. Liberal Feminism

message: Hi DCM, Please explain which references you do not agree should be included in the article:
The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is a conservativeRighting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics by Ronnee Schreiber,
Oxrod University PressWashington Post - "The idea for the IWF was to provide a conservative alternative to feminist tenets. "The Conservative Voice "However, our visitor from another planet would be surprised to discover there are many groups out there that represent conservative women who believe in equality but shun socialism and big government. One of those organizations is the Independent Women's Forum."Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  Oct, 2002  by Ronnee Schreiber "In this article I examine two national conservative women's organizations--the Concerned Women for America (CWA) and the Independent Women's Forum (IWF)--to show how conservative women leaders link gender identity and policy preferences. I describe these organizations below. Like feminists, these women, through their organizations, not only act collectively as women, but also bring a "woman's perspective" to policy issues. Although some scholars have not denied the impact of right-wing movements on feminist goals and activities (Conover & Gray, 1983; Klatch, 1987; Marshall, 1995), others have characterized conservative women as victims of false consciousness, pawns of conservative men or right-wing funders (Dworkin, 1983; Hammer, 2002), or women's auxillar[ies] of the conservative elite" (Kaminer, 1996), thus diminishing the attention and serious consideration appropriate to such a political force."RECIPIENT PROFILE - Media TransparencySource Watch, 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.Right-wing Women by Paola Bacchetta, Margaret Power Pages 211, 213, 214, 218, 219Source Watch NPRRighting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics by Ronnee Schreiber,
Oxrod University PressStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy See section 1.2.3
Thank you for your participation. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

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

message: 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)
thread_title: left wing right wing

message: 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)
thread_title: CCRC link

message: 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)
replies: text: Iron sharpens iron! Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Independent Women's Forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Independent Women's Forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hello wikipedians, a little evaluation of what this article offers

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified