Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

message: *No, because it is empty praise that doesn't help the reader understand the ideas presented by Sommers. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you hear about this discussion? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been talking here for a while. Stop accusing people. Read the fricken history. Plus Bink put out a RFC, he's inviting outside people to comment. ProtoNexus (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your first edit was 5 days ago. Carte Rouge (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this what we do? Harass new users? Am I not allowed to participate in discussion? Do you also harass IP editors? WP has a policy against that by the way. ProtoNexus (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a very loose definition of harassment.  Carte Rouge (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Since there was no consensus, I've removed both the Kirkpatrick quotation and the one by Laura Flanders. The burden to achieve consensus is on those favoring inclusion. My own view is that a bio isn't the place for dueling soundbites about a book, and there are better sources for commentary in any case. Since both quotations already exist at , they are redundant here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Laura Flanders's criticism of the book is relevant to a discussion of Sommers's biography inasmuch as Sommers responded to it. There is no reason a biographical article should not mention criticism of someone's book and what the author had to say in response to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I said, Flanders' remarks are already included at , where I've also just added the info on Sommers' response. Repeating the same material here would be an unnecessary content fork. If we're writing that section in summary style, then only the most important details should be retained. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia that needs to save on space. There is no reason a given fact or piece of information should not be mentioned in more than one article if it is relevant to more than one article. That Flanders' remarks are mentioned somewhere else is decidedly not a reason for not mentioning them in the article on Sommers. I fail to see why Sommers responding to criticism of her work is unimportant for an article about her. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  So do we mention every single instance of Sommers responding to criticism of her work? Where do we draw the line? Your edit just added back that "Sommers responded to FAIR's criticisms in a letter to the editor of FAIR's monthly magazine". What does this tell the reader about Sommers as a person? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be a relevant response if Sommers had made so many responses to criticism of her work that it would be unreasonable to include them in the article. I see no evidence of that. I also see no reason to believe that readers of an article about Sommers wouldn't care about her responding to criticism of her work. Mentioning it provides readers interested in her with a starting point to investigate controversy about her work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't answer my question: what does it say about Sommers as a person? Readers interested in investigating the controversy can just as easily find that information in our article about the book. Any such controversy that isn't suitable for a neutral summary of that article would be unduly weighted in this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-RfC changes

message: I don't see how refs for  can all be  when only two out of eleven are independent sources. (This is a problem in other sections as well.) At the very least, using so many refs with direct connection to Sommers herself could introduce undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They are neutral because they are simple statements of fact. She has written for Time (see her profile on Time), was on the board of advisers for FIRE (see FIRE's list of advisers), etc. These aren't opinions about her, but simple statements of who she has worked for. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't address the issue of due weight. Articles aren't indiscriminate collections of facts, nor are we here to plug Sommers' writing. Why should readers care that she's written for these publications and served on these boards, etc.? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because any biography in an encyclopedia would cover details such as the subject writing for significant publications? - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily. Sommers is a writer, so obviously she's going to have her writing published somewhere. Hundreds of people have written op-eds for Time, for example, from Scott Adams to Robin Wright. And that's not counting pre-Web issues. Does this factoid belong in all their bios? Without independent sources commenting on any of these writing gigs, it just looks like filler, and doesn't tell us anything about Sommers as a person. I would put the most pertinent links in an external links section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course she is going to be published somewhere. As an encyclopaedia, we should be stating where, rather than leaving it as a mystery to the reader. But rather than go through this mess again, I'll spend the few minutes it will take to add third party sources. Hopefully we can drop it then. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty dubious about this USA Today source, which states, "This story originally appeared on the USA TODAY College blog, a news source produced for college students by student journalists. The blog closed in September of 2017". Student journalism can be reliable, as can newsblogs, but in this instance I think we have better sources and can drop this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  And this piece in Bustle is clearly an opinion piece, and thus not usable per RS guidelines, in addition to the site's questionable reliability overall – see WP:RS/P#Bustle. This is a BLP, so high-quality sources are extra important; poorly-sourced material should always be removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You insist that we can't use primary, absolutely reliable sources because you need secondary sources to show importance. When a secondary source is added, you remove it because you feel that it is unreliable, even though we have absolutely no question that it is accurate for the claims it is being used. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed by how you are handling this. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody said writing an encyclopedia was easy. Given Sommers' controversial work, I think high-quality sources are a must, as per WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think it would be easy, but then I didn't think it would be all about unilateral decisions, either. I guess it is good to learn new things - Bilby (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you've since  with different (I hope better) sources. So the end result was an overall improvement to the article. I call that a success. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  In regard to this, my copy of the article lists The Washington Post, but the copy you have linked to does not. - Bilby (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  I found the problem. I was referencing the print version, which includes the Washington Post, not the web version as you linked to. I'll add it back, but I'll make sure to use the print reference as a separate ref in order to address any concerns. (Edit: I found the original online archived version and used that. All fixed now.) - Bilby (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent sources 

message: I've removed these two paragraphs, which lack any independent, reliable sources. As such, any statements about what Sommers believes and supports are unduly weighted if not simply original research. Source #1 is unrelated to Sommers; #4 is an open letter that Sommers signed along with dozens of others; #5 is a self-published video; the others are Sommers' own writing and therefore primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking, but did you check for sources before you removed them? I'm confident that they will be available. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange that nobody bothered to add any in the last 10 years. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So that would be a no, then. Ok. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title IX, marriage, abortion