Talk:Feministing

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent Edits

Hi there. I want to address some of damiens.r's recent changes.

I reverted her title to "founding editor".
Feministing has been noted as a highly trafficked feminist website by two of my sources. I would say that the NYTimes is authoritative and reliable on the subject.

Additionally, Huffington Post (on which the Liz Funk article is published) is a reliable source. It is not self-published, but features news articles and columns from a number of established writers and commentators, with editorial oversight and fact-checking. For more on this, please see this discussion on Huffington Post at the reliable sources noticeboard.

I de-emphasized how often the blog is mentioned as a part of the third-wave movement.
The accolade was not from Ms. Magazine, but from the Blogger's Choice awards. Please check the source before changing the content next time. I have left off "a number of accolades" and made the accolade more specific.

Damiens.rf, please discuss major edits such as those made last night on this page in the future, especially when you remove multiple reliable sources. Thanks. RMJ (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Funk's blog is not a reliable source in regards to net traffic at all. And although I wonder how do NY Times fact-checks statements about young feminist's web preferences, we should respect the newspaper's reputations and accept it as a reliable source. In any case, NTImes says the blog is "wildly popular among young feminists" (actually, "was popular" one year ago). The article currently states that it's "one of the most popular and highly trafficked websites for young progressive women". This should be fixed.

About the Blogger's Choice Awards, the current reference only states that this blog is running for many awards, but it doesn't mentions the results. We need an up-to-date source that really states that the blog "has received a Blogger's Choice award", as the article says.

As accorded, I won't touch the article by now, letting you take care of it as you asked. Keep the good work! --Damiens.rf 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Purpose and Audience

Hi there, user 58.170.122.2. Thanks for contributing. I understand where you are coming from by adding men - men read Feministing too - but men are not Feministing's primary audience, which is what that referred to. Saying that it is popular among progressive women and men would be like saying it is popular among progressive and conservative young and old women and men. Conservatives, older folks, and men read Feministing, but they are not the primary audience. Young progressive women are the primary audience, as stated by the numerous references to that claim. That is why I reverted your claim, though I appreciate your point! Thank you. RMJ (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate?

To include demographic information from Alexa Internet? Novalord2 06:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. All 37 people who actually regularly visit this blog should be properly categorized.222.230.128.224 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)CynTas[reply]

Assertion and Citation Not Matching Up?

I was surprised to read that feministing hosts

discussions celebrating or encouraging abuse against men

so I followed the citation link and read the page. I found there two comments that may be what the above criticism is referring to:

I think this guy fears castration.

If by "fears" you mean "deserves," then yes.

and

someone please give this guy a copy of mary daly's "gyn/ecology" so his head will explode!!!

It seems to me that characterizing these two isolated comments a discussion doesn't accurately represent what's on the page cited. I'd suggest that it would be more fair to write something along the lines of, "The comments hosted on the site include a small minority that advocate violence against men."

I didn't change the page itself because I'm brand new around here and I'm not sure whether that would constitute an opening volley in an "editing war" and I didn't know whether this particular criticism had been discussed at length already.

--Dancingsinging (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. It's just vandalism and constitutes, I believe, original research.

Andral (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Feministing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101227020246/http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1463 to http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1463

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feministing. 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/20090210182143/http://www.salon.com:80/mwt/feature/2007/04/24/valenti/index.html to http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/04/24/valenti/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feministing. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still alive?

as of November 2019, Feministing has not seen updates for 8 months. Should we note it to be defunct, or wait until reliable MSM sources come to the same conclusion? Wefa (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]