Talk:Feminazi

Crispin (2017)

Jessa Crispin writes:

I hear the word feminazi coming from young feminists' mouths today way more often than I have ever heard it coming from the mouths of right-wing men. And they're using it in a similar way, to shame and disassociate themselves from the activists and revolutionaries.

This is an interesting observation, but it's at odds with most of the published sources we cite. Nor does Crispin elaborate on who these "young feminists" are. It would be preferable to have more thorough sourcing for this apparently important claim than a mere personal anecdote, so I've removed it for now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, "most of the published sources we cite" excludes many academic sources that I added (which you later reverted) which do agree with Crispin. —Srid^🍁 16:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Where? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here[1]. —Srid^🍁 16:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Where do any of those sources say anything about "young feminists" using the term feminazi? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm responding to your claim: "it's at odds with most of the published sources we cite" with the emphasize on "at odds with". The many academic sources that I added (which you later reverted) are not at odds with Crispin. Besides, the Cripsin source does have to to agree word by word with other sources; and my edit did not state it as a fact, rather prefixed it with "According to Crispin, ...". —Srid^🍁 16:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The claim that the term is coming out of "young feminists' mouths" is at odds with most of our sources, which link the term with a general opposition to feminism in the culture at large or by Limbaugh specifically: [2][3][4] In what way are your sources "not at odds with" Crispin's claim? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

See the section on Blake source below for just one example, which provides a more specific context to the term, which is completely in alignment of general direction (not exactness) with where Crispin is getting at. Of course it goes without saying that your active refusal to include this (among others) violates WP:BALANCE. —Srid^🍁 20:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What general direction is that? Crispin says the term is used by "young feminists" and "right-wing men" to denigrate "activists and revolutionaries"; Brake says it's part of a "dominant story" about "women and minorities". Those are not necessarily the same people at all, either using the term or being represented by it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Struck comments by blocked sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalgo/Archive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

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)

Has it been removed since I posted this comment? I'm waiting for consensus. Calm down. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You did remove it[5], 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)

Calm down. Bacondrum (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

This is obviously nonsense and I'd like to put this to bed. Can anyone else see any reason to have the Neutrality tag on this article? Sangdeboeuf Rhododendrites StrayBolt — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2sh22pp1l (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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 Sridc has got the wrong end of the stick about what sources do and don't say and what WP:BALANCE means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. No case was ever made for adding it in the first place. Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Struck comments by blocked sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalgo/Archive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Excess citations

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)

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, Antifeminism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality, Part 2

This is an indication that neutrality is indeed something that can't be pursued in this article. ►Sampayu 23:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:@Orangemike: Feminazi = Feminist Nazi.

If you actually read the article that I cited (use Google Translator, if needed), you are going to realize that its authors (which are not e.g. bloggers: they are academics, professors, researchers) transcribed an entire chapter of Adolf Hitler's authobiographic book Mein Kampf (specifically, a segment about Hitler's ideas on Nazism), added a fictional title and fictional authors to it and then submitted it to Affilia, which is a well-known, respected and peer-reviewed feminist journal. Affilia then accepted their article and even praised it.

That's the whole point: the fictional article on Nazism being accepted and praised by a respected feminist journal reveals that at least some of the Affilia feminists unconsciously sympathize with Nazi ideas: their acceptance and praising suggests that, in their minds, they could accept and praise the practical application of Nazi ideas if e.g. men took the place of Jews and women took the place of Nazis.

This type of mindset is literally and precisely that of a feminazi – which is the title of this Wikipedia article.

Hence, citing such article at the Feminazi page is mandatory: it's 100% related with the subject/matter. The claim that my edit is [Unrelated to the subject of the article (sic) is far from true.►Sampayu 00:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is as blatant an example of original research and synthesis as I've seen in a long time. It has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The material has, of course, absolutely no connection to the concept "Feminazi", as the "Nazi" in "Feminazi" isn't really about Nazism at all, it's just a general derogatory word used to disparage someone, like the "Soup Nazi" on Seinfeld. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Orangemike and Beyond My Ken: The process that culminated in the article that I cited was initially intended to be a full academic research. Among other things, it makes the case that there is good reason for the existence of the word "feminazi" in its literal form, i.e. that Nazi-like mindset among some feminists indeed seem to be the actual source for the emergence and popularization of the "feminazi" neologism, i.e. despite of the initial intention of its author/creator. After all, everything has a reason for its existence and language is a living "organism": once the author shares its created neologism with the public (as happened in this case), it's not the author's word anymore, because others are going to use it and adapt its meaning, if necessary. It doesn't really matter that much what "feminazi" initially meant to its creator, but more importantly how people in general perceive this word (and, as a consequence, decide to adopt and use it – or not – with its original meaning or not).

However, those authors were "caught" prior to finishing all the steps of their research (which explored much more than this word), so they were forced to prematurely interrupt their research and turn it into an essay, just like the several essays currently cited in this Feminazi article – except that these ones, contrary to that one that I cited, make a case against the use (and/or the fairness of the generalized use) of the word "feminazi".

Even though the authors turned their research into the essay that I cited, according with Google Scholar (and contrary to the aforementioned "feminist essays" that are being kept in the article), their essay was still cited on 96 scholarly papers and shared more than 9,000 times, too, thus making the case that both "society" and the Academia indeed found/find their essay more relevant, rationally consistent/coherent and empirically connected to factual reality (hence, more reliable) than the "pro-feminism" essays that are kept in this biased, far-from-neutral article.►Sampayu 04:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hogwash, you're wasting everyone's time. You're an avowed anti-feminist -- it says so in the userbox you created which is on your user page -- and you clearly edit with a serious POV. I suggest that you stay far, far away from any articles on feminists and feminism, because sooner or later your editing will attract the kind of attention which will end up in a topic ban being placed on you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please note the banners at the top of this page, which announce that this article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. You've already been notified of this on your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Hogwash, only true/quality encyclopedias offer several points of view instead of only one. Neutrality does not exist, it's impossible, we're humans, everyone is biased, no exception! This is why the best approach is to expose all biases and let the reader decide what to believe, instead of creating an article that shows only one bias (like e.g. the feminist one) and prevents the reader from getting in touch with conflicting ideas.

A single-point-of-view article creates the illusion of an Absolute Truth, which is nonsensical, arrogant and prevents critical thinking. Multiple points of view is how things were done on Wikipedia, back in the 2000s. Since then, it deteriorated to this nothingness disguised as something. I've been a long time away from Wikipedia, now I'm back only to realize that the only part of Wikipedia that still exists is its name.

If the several and inevitably biased points of view are supported by verifiable sources and aren't off-topic, then there's no reason to revert them under Wikipedia's policies and moral grounds: if an editor reverts on-topic verifiable content - as has been done here and also on Antifeminism -, then it's (Redacted).

Larry Sanger is unfortunately right: like everything hijacked by post-modern neo-marxist ideologs, Wikipedia is dead. No wonder that less than 0.3% of its registered users edit it

Enjoy your limited-thinking dictatorship. It's detached from the real world, but it's a great self-deception tool.►Sampayu 06:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Look, Ma! I finally made it!! I'm finally a post-modern neo-Marxist ideologue dictator SOB, just like Dad was!!!! Top of the world, Ma!!!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality does not exist ... the best approach is to expose all biases and let the reader decide what to believe ... WP policy explicitly contradicts this; see WP:WEIGHT.

Thank you for the helpful information on the death of Wikipedia. I'll add it to the file. Cheers! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Those authors were "caught" ... so they were forced to prematurely interrupt their research and turn it into an essay ... No reason here to question the responsibility and ethics of the authors involved, oh no.

If this material belongs anywhere it's at Grievance studies affair. This article is about the antifeminist slur feminazi, not any purported mindset or unconscious sympathies on the part of a handful of academic feminist journal editors. Several of the so-called essays cited in the article are in fact edited news and/or peer-reviewed journal articles. In any case they specifically reference the term feminazi, unlike the essay by Lindsay/Bhogossian/Pluckrose. To infer anything from this source would be the epitome of original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but it doesn't matter anymore.►Sampayu 06:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"National Feminism" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § National Feminism until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)