Talk:Naomi Wolf

message: This article can be trimmed considerably. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. There is too much quoting of her own work. Nangaf (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too much self-sourced content 

message: The article talks about misinformation, but that word presumes the article possesses The Truth about covid.   The reality is that science is evolving and depends on new empirical inputs.
The covid vaccines were developed under Operation Warp Speed at great haste to try to cope with a global pandemic.   Nobody on the planet knows the full and final "truth" about covid vaccines and what would constitute "true" information versus "misinformation."    Science evolves   In the summer of 2021, it was believed that 2 covid shots made a person "fully vaccinated" and good to go, but by the summer of 2022 it had sadly become true that people with 2 covid shots could conceivably get covid, spread it, be hospitalized with it, and indeed even die of it.   A lot of the covid censorship was based
on false certitude.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we believe a random person on the internet (you) more than reliable sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Labelling her as a conspiracy theorist for presenting facts that weren't being discussed about COVID vaccines and side effects is completely biased and not journalistic.  You claim right at the top of this page that articles must have a "neutral point of view." Calling her a conspiracy theorist for questioning side effects of an experimental vaccine that were later proven to be true is as un-neutral as it gets.  Indigo Ibis (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not understand what "neutral" means on Wikipedia. It means adhering to what reliable sources say without inserting your own opinion, see WP:NPOV. So, your own opinion is that she "presented facts" and is not a conspiracy theorist. Reliable sources disagree with you, reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinfo and Info 

message: I propose adding her latest conspiracy theories about time travel vaccines to the main article under the conspiracy theories section.
Also, her current views and her audiences are neither liberal or progressive. She should no longer be called an 'American liberal' when she is playing to an audience of conservative and far-right cranks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7910:D100:ECD5:5B48:C8F1:342B (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolf's comments on Twitter don't seem to be gaining much traction in reliable sources, with the exception of her comments about her support for Joe Biden last November, including her recent statements about vaccines/time travel. For this reason, I think your removal of the liberal tag as a description of Wolf's politics is premature. Philip Cross (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories on Twitter and her political positions 

message: Her PhD thesis was published at last, 6 years after being awarded Republished from Times Higher Education, March 4, 2020, along with corrections to some of the issues and a torrent of critics on the thesis itself and wether the jury did a proper job. This can likely be used to further expand the article JidGom (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is she opining on castrated sheep now? Not that I'm surprised. Nangaf (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: PhD thesis

message: Regarding the Covid vaccine infertility story. I think one take-away from the NPR article was that an early step in a typical meme-spread is that an influential person takes it up. That was Wolf, who then juiced the story up a bit and repeated it multiple times. The current language that Wolf tweeted a link to a Facebook article doesn't, I feel, do justice to the main point in the reference: Wolf is the one who dredged this story out of FB and made it popular -- M.boli (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infertility: I think the point got droppped 

message: The page is protected so I cannot add this, but the page should set the record straight in that the Julian Assange rape allegations/investigations were completely dropped without results. See BBC news reporting from 2019. This is relevant in that it informs the actual outcome of the case. 190.195.146.6 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed because its not relevant to Naomi Wolf or any claims she made Softlemonades (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "or any claims she made"? -- Wolf made the claim that Assange was accused with no substance, and Wolf has been proven correct.  This certainly is to Wolf's credit and related to her claim.  Please return what you have removed. Forkhume (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  She was not proven correct. The case allegations werent dropped, the investigation was closed because Assange wasnt available. The prosecutors even made a statement at the time saying the complainants were credible. Softlemonades (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Assange rape allegations section 

message: This edit removed Wolf's birth date, and thus age. It seems weird to me. Especially having a bio of a notable public figure which does not have so much as her age. -- M.boli (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This removal is asinine and the result of misplaced and authoritarian cultural puritanism and correctness. Forkhume (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of birth date 

message: Wolf appeared on the Ali G show, a show with the actor Sascha Baron Cohen portraying himself as a hip hop figure who purportedly seeks to broadcast information to his audience, unbeknownst to his interviewee that it is all a farce.  Wolf fell for Ali G's schtick in a discussion about feminism, where Ali G checked every box on the list of "how to insult a feminist."  Wolf did behave with grace in light of Ali G's behavior.  This is probably the main reason anyone has ever heard of Wolf. 24.184.235.195 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Naomi Wolf has been publicly known far longer than the interview.  Why do you think Ali G selected her to interview?  What is the year of the interview? Forkhume (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali G show appearance 

message: Change "Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American feminist author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist. After the 1991 publication of her first book, The Beauty Myth, Wolf became a leading spokeswoman of what has been called the third wave of the feminist movement..." to "Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American conservative author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist. After the 1991 publication of her first book, The Beauty Myth, Wolf became a spokeswoman of what has been called the third wave of the feminist movement. Wolf currently embraces far-right extremism and no longer embodies intersectional feminism."
(This is not the edit, just an explanation) Naomi Wolf currently aligns with American conservatism. She has co-authored work with Steve Bannon, she spreads mis/dis-information and has rebranded her political alliances. This by no means justifies how she has been attacked online, but it should be named early on her wiki page that she is no longer this figurehead for third-wave feminism. Rahomie (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thickynugnug (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023 

message: Naomi is not a feminist author but a conspiracy theorist. 2600:1011:B18F:84D9:9578:326:FA46:F6B1 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Urro[talk][edits] 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024