Talk:Matriarchy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

two reversions

On the Margot Adler quotation: Women's power and freedom are within matriarchal governance and thus the quotation contextualizes the coven member's statement, but I'll consider re-editing it soon, to see if concision is feasible.

On demographics: Some well-known feminisms have been criticized by many feminists, womanists, and others as being white mjiddle-class feminism because of who promoted them and how they implemented them on the grouond, some of these critics defining or joining with other feminisms to underline their disagreement. Part of their critique is that white middle-class feminists claim that their beliefs are universally applicable. Betty Friedan, who objected to lesbianism as part of feminism, nonetheless told a lesbian that feminism is for "all women". Admitting a demographic bias counters a claim that an advocate always means "all" females, although some advocates probably do mean "all" (or did when alive). Thus, the demographic statistics, of a kind not common in feminism, are helpful to understanding the subject.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (Corrections (that fragment is about a quote, the "it", and "Part" not "Pat"): 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Strong disagree. I deleted this part: "Margot Adler wrote, "[t]he idea of matriarchy is powerful for women in itself"; "'the whole question [of "matriarchy", however defined,] challenges women to imagine themselves with power. It is an idea about what society would be like where women are truly free.'"" The fact that some ideas are powerful to women doesn't mean they advocate them. Some people may find the idea of packing a bazooka and sitting in a tank extremely powerful, but that doesn't mean that they advocate a change in gun law. The Margot Adler passage has many words, but says very little except that some "woman in the coven of Ursa Maior" wants institutional authority for women and that the idea of matriarchy empowers women. In Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita there's a minor character that says jokingly that the world would be a better place if it were run by women, maybe we can use it as an example of matriarchal advocacy, too? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On the deleted part: Okay. She wrote of the advocacy and also partly defined matriarchy in context, thus clarifying her adjacent statement. Arguably, it should be in a definitional paragraph. But, even leaving it out, it's cited to the same page as the quote that remains, so readers can find that context anyway.

On the other: Did I propose a Bulgakov item? No. So it's not relevant (and see elsewhere on this Talk page). Margot Adler is a respected journalist. Her work is a secondary source. And, I assume unless corrected otherwise, the Bulgakov text didn't have much impact pro or con on this subject.

It happens that I read your edit and drafted the first part of this answer before reading your Talk reply.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Bulgakov have more say in the matter than one "woman in the coven of Ursa Maior"? You tell me, Nick. What I meant to say is that a person who is dead set on pointing out as many advocates of matriarchy (of course, he uses his own inclusion criteria) as he can, will find any anecdote worth including so long as it supports his point of view. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We both agreed that the Bulgakov character is irrelevant or likely irrelevant, so I'm not the one to justify its inclusion. You brought it up and it didn't belong. "[F]inding any ... worth including" is appropriate research, because "worth including" depends on qualifying under Wikipedia's standards. Anyone may research anywhere they want, as far as Wikipedia cares. What we put into the article is another matter. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Positive changes

Nick Levinson, I think the way you reorganized the section "Advocacy of Matriarchy" is a step in the right direction. There are still many problems in my opinion, but the section looks more organized. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

She is the midwife and chief of the women. She helps birthing women and kill the deformed babes. The male chief have no authority over she and her women.

"Not well sourced - also the description of the image cannot be known to apply to this woman."

What do this say? Are this topic closed?Haabet 13:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The caption about midwifery and so on is not supported by the caption where the image comes from within Wikimedia. Since she is shown clearly enough to identify her and she may be living, the difference in captioning, if it is contentious and it may be, probably violates the BLP policy (and if she is dead inaccurate information about her doesn't belong anyway). Some other picture may be appropriate for the intended purpose in this article, but not this picture. And I question the intended purpose: What's potentially relevant to this article in the proposed caption is whether there are groups of women over whom male chiefs have no authority, but from the proposed caption I wonder if the limit on that authority is only within midwifery and the like and not on the wide range of functions of society and living. In that case, another source may be better. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a link and added a blank line to separate this topic from the one above: 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

I agree with Nick 100% (especially about the captioning)--Cailil ^talk 16:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Two definitions

A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership and moral authority. Many many communities are so. This definition is made to fit the reality in many societies.

There are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, This statement is true, but only if you follows this different definition:
matriarchy, social order where social, political and economic power held by women and where religion is centered around the cult of a mother goddess. The concept was launched in the late 1800s by the evolutionary anthropologists J. J. Bachofen and L. H. Morgan, who believed that matriarchy had been common in the ancient primitive societies. However, anthropologists have not been able to find a single example of matriarchy in fact, whether in history or the present.

Especially it is hard to find the mother-goddesses.Haabet 12:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Which society (or societies) is it where women unequivocally have prominence in public positions of power and authority, so that women overall have significantly more overt power over men than men have over women? No one would get hung up on the technical details of Bachofen or other 19th-century anthropologists, if you could point to a clear example of such a society. By the way, the thing with rings lengthening the neck is interpreted by many feminists as a misogynistic way of burdening and controlling women. AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the claims about Valerie Solanas

Saying that Valerie Solanas advocated the killing of men, or matriarchy or female superiority of whatever it is that the author if the section wants to imply, is like saying that Jonathan Swift advocated the killing of Irish children. The SCUM Manifesto is widely recognized as a satire of patriarchy (and some argue Freud's psychoanalysis).

Here a few sources:

"If we examine the text more closely, we see that its analysis of patriarchal reality is a parody [...] The content itself is unquestionably a parody of the Freudian theory of femininity, where the word woman is replaced by man [...] All the cliches of Freudian psychoanalytical theory are here: the biological accident, the incomplete sex, "penis envy" which has become "pussy envy," and so forth [...] Here we have a case of absurdity being used to as a literary device to expose an absurdity, that is, the absurd theory which has been used to give "scientific" legitimacy to patriarchy [...] What about her proposal that men should quite simply be eliminated, as a way of clearing the dead weight of misogyny and masculinity? This is the inevitable conclusion of the feminist pamphlet, in the same way that Jonathan Swift's proposal that Irish children (as useless mouths) should be fed to the swine was the logical conclusion of his bitter satirical pamphlet protesting famine in Ireland. Neither of the two proposals is meant to be taken seriously, and each belongs to the realm of political fiction, or even science fiction, written in a desperate effort to arouse public consciousness.” (Ginette Castro, American Feminism: A Contemporary History, New York, 1990, New York University Press, ISBN 0814714358, p. 73-74.)

“The SCUM Manifesto parodies the performance of patriarchal social order it refuses.” (Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties, New York, 1999, Routledge, ISBN 0415921686, p. 68-69)

"As a work of satire, the "SCUM Manifesto" is rhetorically effective in that it deconstructs the reader's received notions of of masculinity and femininity." (James Penner, Pinks, Pansies, and Punks: The Rhetoric of Masculinity in American Literary Culture, Bloomington, 2011, Indiana University Press, ISBN 9780253355478, p. 233). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting point (how her work was meant and understood), and I want to think about what you've said a bit more. (The problem with strategically quoting would be if she contradicted her book in her book or close enough that publishers shouldn't have published it. That's not the case. How it was to be understood or was understood, or is, is thus important.) I think Jonathan Swift's work was generally understood as not a serious proposal (the eating part, at least by the time I heard of it) but Valerie Solanas' was taken as serious, and perhaps the better approach here is to include more secondary sourcing to encompass the debate about what she meant and how it was understood. The word in the title was a literary device; how much else were literary devices, satirical, or parody may be unknown. That much may be psychoanalytically grounded doesn't alter her intent; many people believed Freudian psychoanalytic theory to be scientifically valid, and she was trained in psychology. Psychoanalytic grounding, which may itself be invalid at least in part, does not invalidate some of her assessments about what can be done toward the goal she lays out, because her assessments (e.g., that "'events ... will lead to total female control of the world'", per article's former n. 85) are not all inverses of Freudian theory, unless Freud was masculist well beyond what I've read or heard about him, and I don't think she intended her work to be strictly logical or scientific. That her work was satirical or parody, as the second and third of your source paragraphs offer, may be true without changing its relevance to this article, but the first of your source paragraphs may be very useful along with others in determining appropriate treatment of the Manifesto. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (Clarified re Jonathan Swift and corrected grammar of "offers" to "offer": 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

She mentioned her intent a couple of times. She never seemed to have intended SCUM to be read as "society fors cutting up men" ("When publisher Girodias claimed that SCUM was an acronym for Society for Cutting Up Men (something Solanas never seems to have intended), he reinforced the idea that the manifesto was part of a movement of man haters." Susan Ware, Notable American Women: A Biographical Dictionary Completing the Twentieth Century Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004, ISBN 067401488X, p. 603) and she never meant the work to be seen as a serious proposal. According to her, it was a literary device (and you wrote so yourself in the article). So we know what the author said about her intent. If she was such a big bad matriarchist and female supremacist as you make her out to be, wouldn't she have proudly stood by her "real" message instead of denying it? Also, we have other sources which say the same thing, namely that SCUM is a satire of patriarchy etc.

No, Jonathan Swifts Modest Proposal was not always read as a parody. Many (perhaps most) of his contemporaries were convinced that he was a depraved and disturbed man and it was only much later that the reception of his work changed and A Modest Proposal came to be known as a parody (but still not universally accepted as such). SCUM is relatively new but already many sources point out that it's obviously a satire. Even her publisher Maurice Girodias said that SCUM is satire: "Solanas's outrageous SCUM Manifesto - pegged by its first publisher Maurice Girodias as a Swiftian satire" (J. Hoberman, The Magic Hour: Film At Fin De Siècle, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2003, ISBN 1566399955, p. 48).

No, the approach here is that since your claims are very likely to be disputed by other editors (this is only the tip of the iceberg and I think there are more problems with the section), you need the best sources. Taking a source like SCUM whose interpretation is already not 100% sure and then saying that SCUM fits in the continuum of other feminist works that advocate matriarchy (which, I'm sorry, still needs sourcing), makes for a very weak foundation for this section.

The "goal she lays out" according to many sources is to make fun of patriarchy. If you read SCUM that way, SCUM is totally misplaced in your section about "advocacy of matriarchy."

Conclusion: You need the best sources. Example: "Prof. Cynthia Eller found widespread acceptance of matriarchal myth during feminism's second wave." That is the kind of sourcing I'm talking about. Now if you could find that "Prof. Cynthia Eller (or XYZ) argued that Mary Daly advocated matriarchy," (or at least something like that) I would shut up and go away. But the direct quotes, the lack of sources which tell us if the authors really mean what you say they do, all the semicolons, your choice to source each quote, the structure and length (!!!) of the section doesn't look like a good Wikipedia entry. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get to as much of this as I can before my computer session ends; then I'll resume after that, hopefully tomorrow morning or Saturday.

I didn't say that SCUM was necessarily meant to stand for the expansion usually ascribed to it, but some authors do contend that, as does the cover of one or two editions of the Manifesto, and I sourced that about the other authors along with her denial. It's an important fact (that people thought so), and with sourcing it's important to include. Whether she stood by her message is an open question: her shooting of Andy Warhol was for a different reason (she may have stood by her views on property by being homeless but that's a separate issue). But are matriarchalists to be believed only if they act on it to the point they theorize? I wouldn't go that far. Because her work is an important part of the dialogue on the topic of whether men should be secondary towards women being in charge, I read her book to see if it was about governing both genders or separatist. It has enough about the former to qualify for the article; otherwise, it wouldn't. Even if it's satire, if it was understood as furthering an aspiration that women be in charge, it's not less reportable. Not all satires fit that; but this one would. But I'm interested in more sources about both sides of the relevance of her work to female governance.

We're not editing a Wikipedia of Jonathan Swift's time, so that point is moot. I'll look for more sourcing on her work; I accept your criticism that there isn't enough regarding her work.

Direct quotes answer the concern that the respective authors never said these things.

Sources about the major sources are given. For example, the Andrea Dworkin source is backed by two more sources. Others are also cited.

The sentence structure (semicolons, etc.) solves a problem about putting each major source into a unit; I gave each a sentence. I'll consider reorganizing it into a list for each paragraph.

The length is due to the amount of material and the tendency of some critics to say it doesn't exist. I'll consider adding subsubsection titles.

The structure also solves another problem. Female governance was rejected as an article subject and the Matriarchy article was proposed, over my opposition, as logical for the content. I'd be happy to have a separate article and believe it to be a very notable subject, but that'll probably get nowhere. (One editor called a separate article a content fork and agreed with others on Matriarchy as destination.) The rationale is that the word matriarchy has very wide meaning, enough to encompass this content, and so I divided the paragraphing between those sources known to be inspired by or connected to matriarchy and those not; Andrea Dworkin's book probably doesn't use the word. Yet she clearly wrote about a concept that is within the wide definition of matriarchy.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

SCUM can only be understood as furthering an aspiration that women be in charge, if it is not satire. Many sources say that it is satire which renders SCUM unusable for your section about those who advocate matriarchy.

Direct quotes can be picked strategically to advance a POV that the authors never intended. Sometimes this is the result of direct manipulation and misrepresentation of material and sometimes it can be an interpretative mistake on the part of the person who undertakes the interpretation. People have big ears and eyes for everything that supports their opinions and as a psychologist I know that this is the case for all people. This is why I insist that you provide reliable sources that interpret the works of Andrea Dworkin and the other women instead of interpreting them yourself. I can see that you are very well read and that you know more about these things than most people, but despite my trust in your knowledge and good intentions, interpretations that are likely to be disputed must be the work of reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors (even if they are very qualified). If it is a common or notable reading that Phyllis Chesler advocated matriarchy, then, surely, you can't be the first person to notice and write about it. There must be a reliable source that says (maybe not using those exact words) that Chesler advocated matriarchy.

Perhaps I can illustrate my point using a specific example. The sentence Prof. Cynthia Eller found widespread acceptance of matriarchal myth during feminism's second wave is great and nobody could ever dispute that. It is attributed to Cynthia Eller, it is presented as her finding, not a truth. But the passages about Chesler, Daly, to a smaller extent Dworkin, etc. can only be attributed to Nick Levinson, Wikipedia editor and they are presented not as the interpretation of said editor but simply as da one and only possible interpretation, i.e., da truth about it.

You say that other sources are given. Let's take the sentence about Chesler as an exmaple. The secondary sources are Douglas and Spencer. Do Douglas and Spencer say that those quotes exemplify Chesler's advocacy of matriarchy (or something similar)? Or do they discuss the quotes but don't read them that way? If the latter is the case, then you have no business presenting them in the article as support for your interpretation.

When a reading of a book is attributed to a specific person (i.e., Cynthia Eller found... or Dale Spencer stated that Chesler's Women and Madness...), then that's great and it's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. But when it turns out that the reading of a book can't be attributed to anyone other than a Wikipedia editor, then that's a problem. I could quote Richard Dawkins but pick the quotes so strategically that I could make him look like a deeply religious person. But since that analysis could only be attributed to me, it would have no place here.

You say that the the length is due to the amount of material and the tendency of some critics to say it doesn't exist. What doesn't exist? Matriarchy or advocacy of matriarchy? That means the length of the section is even more against NPOV than I assumed if some critics say that advocacy of matriarchy doesn't exist. Also, only a very small part of the section is attributed to authors who aren't you, so if we are being very strict, the content that is based on your analysis would have to go now.

I'll try to help if I can. I started reading the Dwokrin book and the other sources for it. So perhaps we can work something out that addresses my concerns without removing the content. I'm sorry if I'm bothering you and I'm sorry you only have your computer sessions to work with, but this is no more fun for me that it is for you. I just think that some parts of the section need to change or go to meet Wikipedia standards. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My plan respecting the Manifesto is to look for more sources about it, then see what treatment is apropos. It may be treatable as historically received as a real proposal that lately is viewed as satire/parody. Satires and parodies can be advocacies. If Manifesto was taken that way, then satire or parody served that purpose. If that's what sources support, that treatment is both good and consistent not only with Wikipedia generally but with this article, too, since this article already goes back centuries.

Authors may write either satire/parody or nonfiction and not mean it. An example would be someone insulting someone else even satirically and then being sorry because they didn't mean the insult. Whether that was akin to Valerie Solanas' case is something to be judged from sources.

What I know of as being a literary device was the abbreviation's expansion. I don't know that the whole book was a literary device. That's different. If sources indicate that the whole was satire/parody, fine. If not, fine. I haven't read most of those sources. Reading additional sources will come before deciding on a new treatment.

What you say about Jonathan Swift's proposal's initial reception would fit the Wikipedia article on his work (I only skimmed the article but the initial reception seems absent). History is not excluded from Wikipedia (I don't know if it is in Wikinews, but not here). The same principle applies to the Manifesto.

Instead of speculating whether I quoted anything against context, note that I cited page numbers. Check as many texts as you wish. If your nearby public libraries lack them, ask about interlibrary loan; it may be free; and Google Books and Amazon offer some pages. I used actual books, not Google or Amazon for most or all of them, because seeing entire books is more reliable for ensuring that quotes are consistent with context, including frontmatter, when Google and Amazon omit pages from modern books. All of my quotes meet that test of contextual consistency.

Your speculative charge that I might be so altering what authors wrote presumably likewise applies to any kind of source, secondary, primary, or tertiary. It is not that some books cannot be misquoted or quoted against context and only other books can be. All can be but none are here, as I quoted them. Even primary sources (and most of what I cited is secondary) may be used, as long as use is careful. All the sources can be verified.

To show that twisting of meaning can be done to a secondary source, I plucked a volume of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (10th ed. 2007). I didn't care what volume it was; I picked vol. 10 (Lib to Meta). I only had to go to three pages to find an easy possible misquote. On p. 438, under "Marine geology", it says, "Approximately 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water." Any of us could edit that to, "Approximately 70% of the Earth ... is ... water." Unless I'm going to be surprised, I think most of Earth under the oceans is solid or, where liquid, far too hot for much water. (When water is defined as a liquid, steam doesn't count, so any water down there probably has to be compressed.) The nature of the source as secondary or not has nothing to do with an editor's accuracy about that source.

I changed no meanings by quoting sources. The quotes are accurate and properly authorized by source content, not what you misname as "strategically" picked. We are supposed to select. We select what's relevant to the article. We select consistently with the sources. I do, and I provide citations designed for verification. They may not be online. But they're real.

You charge not only going against consensus but reversing meaning altogether (your discussion of Richard Dawkins, whom I gather from your comment may be an atheist). In no case did I do anything remotely like that. In no case have you pointed specifically to anything like that in any of my edits. You have speculated, but not specified. I'm willing to accept that you might misunderstand a passage and that it might need clarifying. But you haven't pointed to one you misunderstand and think is false. We have disagreed on the relevance of one but you did not say I quoted it falsely, rather that I shouldn't have cited it.

Using sources always involves some interpretation, but doing so within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is exactly what Wikipedia wants us to do. The question is whether an editor violated policies and guidelines. When I've cited a source, the content cannot be attributed "only to Nick Levinson". To say that most of the content is attributed only to me is both obviously wrong and obviously exaggeration. Please don't exaggerate and leave it at that. It can damage your credibility. It did.

No citation is wrong. You criticized them, at least some, for style. Apart from some trimming that I hope to do shortly, their style is correct. If you think one cite is wrong in any way, point to it.

You are right that all of us are more sensitive to some stimuli than to others; and I'll add that this varies in degree from person to person and that we can err wildly because of it. That's why I leaned over backwards to be careful. As is known in psychology, that, too, is possible, or humans would survive due to randomness only, you personally would be unable to select sources with care, and Wikipedia couldn't exist. The lions would have eaten all our ancestors.

"The majority of the claims aren't attributed to anyone." False. And your subsequent statement doesn't relieve that one.

You asked for more sources on Andrea Dworkin's work. You have two on hers, besides hers. Now you're starting an endless chain: you're effectively claiming that every source must have yet another source. Wikipedia does not require an infinite supply chain.

Many of the advocacies draw their advocating conclusions from the research they in turn cite. A botanist who is a leader in the field of scientific botany can write a book citing studies on plant safety and then, even though the studies don't advocate decorating your home with any plants, in that book the botanist can advocate decorating your home with some plants because they're safe, and we can publish that safety finding and home compatibility in Wikipedia without further sourcing. A theologian who is a leader in the field of religious studies can write a book offering quotes of words spoken by a deity and then, even though the quotes don't advocate a certain method of prayer, in that book the theologian can advocate that prayer method, and we can publish that method in Wikipedia without further sourcing. Feminists can do likewise. The ones I've cited have been accepted as part of feminism.

I didn't present advocacies as fact in the sense of what they only advocated as already existing concretely. They're stated as advocacies.

I rely on my expertise for drafting. I hardly ever do (rely on my own expertise alone) for final content. Here's an exception, and it's not a sky-is-blue exception: I wrote criticisms of this controversial subject before I had citations for the criticisms. I was confident I'd find those sources soon enough. I did and posted them (and more are coming). I've noticed that many people objecting to the main content even when sourced did not object to the unsourced criticisms of that content. It's okay for all of them to be biased before they draft comments, but they misjudged NPOV when they posted and perhaps your advice to me about psychology (which is correct) should be directed to them instead.

Speculating that I might have gotten something wrong and then saying that because of that possibility alone the content is no good unless I spend more hours finding yet another page is endless. Anyone could ask me what some previous page says, including one by Cynthia Eller. Anyone can guess that someone might have done something wrong. I'd like all of my guesses about the world to be right all the time. But none of us have that luxury. For Wikipedia, you have citations. Please use them as Wikipedia intends. It's work. I wish I could tell you that you can go through life without work.

The claim that the feminist advocacies don't exist was by one or more Wikipedia editors and was, as a denial, unsourced (being on a talk page, arguably it doesn't have to be sourced). Even if a source were to say that they don't exist, we'd treat that like a sourced claim that most of us don't exist (for which I could cite Bertrand Russell as a philosopher on solipsism). Even if all the advocacy sources were primary, that wouldn't amount to nonexistence. But if anyone comes across a source that denies their existence, we could add that to criticism. I don't recall such a source, but there's probably an old (if inaccurate) one from a quiet time, probably prior to the second wave.

The length is not excessive for the article, since Wikipedia is not giving a length warning in Edit mode, but I'll work on possibilities of subsubsectioning and making lists for easier navigation.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC) (Corrected my misattribution to an editor: 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC))

Reorganizing into lists and dividing sentences to remove semicolons is now done. The section should be easier to read now. Subsubsectioning now appears unnecessary. Thank you for raising the concerns. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (Removed what belonged in a different topic/section & is there: 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

I have been saying all along that you should base your interpretations on sources. According to the three sources I cited the purpose of SCUM is to parody the Freudian theory of femininity, the performance of patriarchal social order and serve as a rhetorical device that deconstructs the reader's received notions of of masculinity and femininity. Please bear in mind that I picked the three sources because they are easily verifiable for you via google books. There are of course many more reliable sources which argue that SCUM is unquestionably a satire.

Skimming Wikipedia articles is a sub-optimal way to inform yourself. If you doubt that many people and most if his contemporaries thought that Swift meant what he wrote: [1]

You have failed to remain neutral in your depiction of the SCUM Manifesto. You prioritized your interpretation of SCUM; you ignored sources that contradict your reading of the text; you strategically picked words and bits of sentences that support your reading of the text and implied against NPOV that SCUM does something that according to many reliable sources it does not. You used direct quotes and yet your depiction of the book contradicts the depiction of the book by many reliable sources. Since you thought it necessary to lecture me on my "damaged credibility," let me point out that your lack of neutrality in regards to the Solanas text does very little for your credibility in general and your other contributions to this article in particular.

Wikipedia wants us to minimize our interpretative input. If you could find a direct quote in the texts you cite that unambiguously states that author XYZ advocates matriarchy, great, awesome, wonderful. A direct quote like that would be something along the lines of Andrea Dworkin writing "This is why I think that we should aspire to a matriarchal order." But picking bits and pieces from the text and arranging them so as to support your reading of them (which is, author XYZ advocates matriarchy) is not acceptable.

If a reliable source says that "In her book 123, Mary Daly advocates matriarchy," then there's minimal interpretative input from us as editors and it's very difficult to make mistakes with the quote. If, however, you take the original text and pick a word from page 32, two words from page 234, half a sentence on page 157, and another three words on page 398, and imply that she advocated matriarchy simply by placing the paragraph in the "Advocacy of Matriarchy" section, then just is not acceptable. The worst part of it is, 'you have neither reliable sources that support your interpretation and depiction of the text nor direct quotes that unambiguously uphold your reading of the book. You ain't got nothing.

You wrote "no citation is wrong." When citations are selected and arranged to advance a specific point of view that is held by a Wikipedia editor but is not supported by reliable sources, then we have a very serious problem.

The problems with the entire section "Advocacy of Matriarchy" are similar to those you had with the depiction of SCUM: 1) You offer your original interpretation of texts. 2) You claim that you use "direct quotes" and that "a citation is never wrong" but you don't actually provide a quote that says that the authors advocate matriarchy. 3) You have failed to produce sources that support most of your interpretations.

All I ask you to do is provide sources for your interpretations. Please start with your interpretation of Mary Daly's book as advocating matriarchy. I want to see a reliable source that supports your reading. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

I indeed based my content on sources.

You appear to believe that even if proper sources exist the content must not be written. Wikipedia doesn 't work like that. You are engaging in pre-emptive attack. You are repeating yourself.

You are not the only authorized researcher on the subject. It's nice of you to find sources. But others of us are not forbidden to do research, report sources, and quote or paraphrase them according to what they say. That's what Wikipedia allows. As already noted, if the research I do ends up where you have, fine. If not, fine. There is no rule that only sources that say that the Manifesto may not be used are legitimate.

I did not challenge your claim about Jonathan Swift's early reception. I said you can add it to Wikipedia. I said it wasn't in the article. For that purpose, skimming is legitimate. You may read the Wikipepdia article word-for-word yourself and either find it there or decide whether to add it. That's your decision. I am not your secretary.

You pretend to disagree about the challenge but apparently you don't really, since you cited outside of Wikipedia as a source, legitimate if I had challenged you on point, but I hadn't. Instead of taking up space on a point irrelevant to this article, please go over there and edit that article on his Proposal if you wish. But it does not belong on this talk page.

Your statement "[y]ou have failed to remain neutral in your depiction of the SCUM Manifesto" (boldfaced in original) flat-out ignored that no one, myself included, put anything into this article about the Manifesto since you took the passage out. Therefore, your statement is an utter misrepresentation. No one has to be neutral except in the article. That has not been violated.

Your statement "you ignored sources that contradict your reading of the text" is not valid since you provided some and I did not add the Manifesto back in. They're not ignored or contradicted at this time. Please stop engaging in charge repetition when a charge is not valid.

Strategically picking, as you call it:

• We're supposed to select. There's no room or legal copyright authorization (generally) to reprint entire books in Wikipedia.
• No quote is unauthorized by the original. You have pointed to no instance of such. You're repeating a baseless charge. You wrote the following: "If, however, you take the original text and pick a word from page 32, two words from page 234, half a sentence on page 157, and another three words on page 398, and imply that she advocated matriarchy simply by placing the paragraph in the 'Advocacy of Matriarchy' section, then [sic] just is not acceptable." Absolutely false, because that never happened. Read the article anywhere I edited it.

Please don't repeat a false charge about quoting falsely without finding a single instance of it.

In response to my saying that no citation is wrong, you wrote, "[w]hen citations are selected and arranged to advance a specific point of view that is held by a Wikipedia editor but is not supported by reliable sources, then we have a very serious problem." Of what I supplied: The content is neutral. All the sources are reliable. All the sources support the content. The citations taken together cite the sources that support the content. They're supposed to.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by deleting an unmatched comma and by noting that a quote was originally boldfaced: 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

You actually admitted here on this talk page that you don't always base your work on sources. You said that you first wrote down your feelings and thoughts in the "criticism" section and only then started to look for sources that support your feelings and thoughts.

The problem with your interpretation of SCUM is that you prioritized your interpretation and didn't mention the sources that contradict your opinion about the text. As a result, the passage about Solanas came out non-neutral.

You wrote that stuff about SCUM, you put it in the article, you failed to mention the other sources, and therefore, I am perfectly justified to say "You have failed to remain neutral in your depiction of the SCUM Manifesto" (I took my clue from you regarding the bold lettering). The fact that I was here to somewhat rectify the situation by removing the passage, was a lucky coincidence, but how does that strengthen your case?

I will continue to insist that you provide reliable sources. I have the two sources about Dworkin's book and I'm okay with paragraph for now, although I've expressed doubts about the second source where the author accuses Dworkin of fascism, white supremacy, etc, etc, and ends with an accusation of female supremacy. But perhaps any source is better than no source. Now I ask you to please provide sources for the passage about Mary Daly. I will continue to repeat my request: Please provide sources, at least one, that supports your reading of Mary Daly's book.

I think my requests are more than sensible. I also think that your reactions to my requests were completely out of line. You have left a comment about me on the talk page of an editor (whom I respect very much) and in that comment you call me a "flamethrower" and say that I want to "destroy" this article and, in addition, you lecture me on credibility. Calling me a "flamethrower" indicates a lack of respect for me as an editor and as a person.

So yes, I am taking a break from this conversation. And I am deleting the passage about Mary Daly because I have repeatedly asked you to provide a source for that passage (other than your thoughts and feelings about her book) but you deflect. Wikipedia wants us to remove unsourced and controversial claims immediately and I won't be bullied into doing nothing. Look what would have happened if I had done nothing about your description of SCUM.

One last thing, should you continue to call me names or badmouth me to other editors, I will report it. I let another editor insult me for weeks and didn't act but it won't happen again. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I posted criticisms without sourcing them or most of them at the time, but, if I hadn't I would have had to hold everything else up lest there be a charge of POV for lack of criticisms. And I added the sources when I had them. So, two problems were solved. It's a subject I know enough about so my feelings and thoughts were not uninformed; I mainly didn't have citations yet, because I had forgotten which sources supported exactly what, and had to do fresh research to find them or others. There are plenty of articles in which I've read something that appeared erroneous but about which I knew too little to edit usefully, so I stayed out, or only posted to talk, and I apply that judgment wherever appropriate (besides, that saves time).

Boldfacing in my talk post was to organize it without subsectioning and when quoting with a change (adding or subtracting) bold or italic from the original the quoter should bibliographically note the change. My critique of the point is that I did not know of those other sources and therefore did not make a decision to leave them out (except in the sense that we all leave all unknown sources out). By the time you criticized me for that, the Manifesto material was already out and I said I was going to re-research it, and you appeared to be disagreeing about whether I had any right to do that research once you already had a conclusion on the matter. You raised a legitimate point about whether the work was meant or understood as serious in any significant and relevant part, given that the abbreviation was eventually acknowledged as not really one; but the point is not settled, other than that some sources probably do consider it settled, but I doubt all do, and that remains a valid point for research into sources. If the result is that sourcing supports reporting the Manifesto in this article, then we may. If the result is as you have indicated (no significant sources disagreeing), then that's fine.

When the problem with content is lack of criticism that exists, the appropriate thing is to add the criticisms, rather than remove the content.

The Mary Daly book is a secondary source. It is also a radical feminist book. It also states one or more conclusions likely original to her. None of that is in conflict with each other. It may be a primary source on some kinds of content, but not this. Had she written, say, "I'm building a hag-ocracy", that would have been primary, and even that could have been used, as long as it was used with care. Just as a biologist can write a book analyzing scientific studies and a theologian can write a book analyzing sacred passages with both books being secondary sources, and both books can state the authors' conclusions and recommendations never stated anywhere else and the books would still be secondary, the same is true of works in feminist politics and ethics, Mary Daly's field. She didn't write that a society of a type existed when social-science research would have the consensus that it doesn't; she wrote that such a society should exist. The subject is notable, she's notable for her feminist work, her advocacy was not trivial, the article is not brimming over the top with advocacies in terms of article length limits, and the article includes criticisms. So including her advocacy is already within standards. Her book is citable even without another source repeating what she said. The passage is not unsourced; Mary Daly's book is a citable source and it is cited. Adding a source about her advocacy is fine, but not required. There's no problem with adding content about her advocacy, but it's apropos to keep it as it is now, and simply add if and as material turns up. It's not out of reach that some of the less-well-known feminist serials of the time of her book would have covered it; however, they're probably on microfilm and not online, so Google may not be the tool for finding those sources to add, but probably more than one library acquired the microfilms. College student serials also may have covered it back then. Anyone is free to add to the existing sourcing.

Interestingly, in some of my research, I've found authoritative secondary sources going farther than I do in interpreting the same primary sources. I don't mind using and citing them, but I tend to be the more cautious interpreter, even when interpreting is allowed.

The basis of what I said about your responses to my edits was in the talk posts. If we're now going to have discussion focused on where we disagree on the article, and it looks like we will, I'm happy with that progress.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can tell that you think you know enough about the subject to work without proper references. This doesn't just apply to the approach you took when writing the criticism section. Your assertion that your "feelings and thoughts were not uninformed" looks dubious considering your handling of the Solanas text.

It's your responsibility to gather enough information to ensure neutrality and accuracy of the material before you edit. Claiming ignorance afterward ("I did not know of those other sources...") is a poor excuse.

Thank you for acknowledging that I raised a legitimate point. It's a pity that you refuse to clarify your previous accusations which were posted on the talk page of an administrator that I was trying to "destroy" this article and that I'm a "flamethrower" and whatnot.

The Mary Daly paragraph is unsourced. It is unsourced because you analyzed, synthesized, interpreted, and evaluated the material yourself and refuse to give me a reliable source which corroborates your interpretative input. You're lucky that many of the women that you accuse of advocating female superiority are dead, and that WP:PLP no longer applies.

Your claim that Mary Daly's book is not a primary source directly contradicts one of the examples that Wikipedia provides to help distinguish a secondary from a primary source:

A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

A book by a radical feminist about matriarchy might be a secondary source about matriarchy (if it were written as a kind of text book or "meta-analysis" of existing literature about matriarchies), but if it includes details of the authors own experiences, theories, and advocacies, it would be a primary source. Even if the Mary Daly book were a primary source then the problem remains that Daly never actually states that she advocates matriarchy. You've provided a few citations (no citation for the vital claim that she wants to "reverse phallocentric rule") and based on the same quotations I come to a very different conclusion. To avoid the "your opinions vs. my opinion problem," you should provide a reliable source that corroborates your interpretation.

I will return to Mary Daly in more detail when I finish reading her book.

I have been addressing the content of the article without calling you names. You didn't extend the same courtesy to me.

I see three stylistic problems that reinforce the problems in content and vice versa: You don't attribute opinions and instead state them as facts or a consensus opinion. Much of the section is unreadable because you don't follow WP:INCITE. You don't mention the specific books that are alleged to contain examples of advocacy, instead you write that author SoandSo just advocates matriarchy in her entire work.

Another problem is that you seem to confuse Wikipedia with Wikiquote where you've posted the exact same things about the authors. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm letting bygones be bygones because your interaction began to improve so that we could possibly get work done with some reasonable degree of concentration and efficiency. I'm willing to clarify what I posted to Cailil if you specify what's unclear.

On Valerie Solanas' Manifesto, you're welcome to describe it as you deem best and to produce sourcing saying so, but, so far, that does not make that description the only valid one. There is not unanimity. American Feminism, by Ginette Castro, which you cited in this Talk topic, does not make a strong case for disbelieving that Valerie Solanas meant what she wrote in the body of her work. Ginette makes a case; it probably should be cited; but it is not dispositive.

Given how many books related to feminism I've read, Valerie Solanas' work got a reasonable treatment from me, which kept the article neutral, because her work does not have to be neutral, only the article has to be. An article devoted entirely to her work could be more detailed as to criticism, but this article is not principally about her work and we do not have to copy the entire article about her work into this one, since that is the purpose and sufficiency of cross-linking. I'm willing to improve the passage for this article about her work and have already stated my intention to do so. You may improve it so also. I'm glad you posted more references; I read one of them after you suggested it and have looked for the others (I may have to get them through interlibrary loan, which can take weeks to months). But my not being previously aware of the sources you posted is not "a poor excuse". That's hyperbolic. On any subject that's widely written on, some of us are likely to miss some germane sources. We tell each other about them. We don't attack each other for not having found them first. You may find more in either or both directions and post them. I'm pretty sure that we can find some excellent math books that some excellent mathematicians have not read; that does not make those mathematicians low-grade to most other mathematicians. We do not delay all of Wikipedia until everything that should be content can be posted in one fell swoop. We treat Wikipedia as an ongoing project and we add.

On your point that the Manifesto can be read as making fun of patriarchy, that's true for almost any text that has anything to do with patriarchy, because a reader can project anything they like into anything they read. I'm going by her words. If I shouldn't, we need a stronger basis before we say it must be read as not what she meant. Since part of it has already been accepted as a feminist statement, to read her goal statement (what to do about men) and her underlying analysis (of the existing society) as both being not what she meant is contraindicated and to read the former as unintentional but the latter as intentional requires support for the split, and nonunanimity comes up.

I reaffirm my earlier post in this topic as it states my plan respecting that book. You seem to object even to that plan. Please state why. Do you believe that some research into sources is forbidden even before started? Do you believe that such research is valid only if it goes in one direction but not if it goes the other way even if both directions are properly supported? It is not our job to decide that what she wrote is horrible and therefore change Wikipedia's standards to exclude her work. If you disagree, then begin changing those standards; but the place to do so is on the talk pages for those standards, not here.

On the Mary Daly paragraph (I assume you mean the list item in the paragraph), you say it is unsourced. It has five citations to the major source work. Therefore, it is sourced. This is a case where you perhaps are not saying what you mean and perhaps are trying to prevent discussion of your real concern. If, however, I may take your words literally, which I prefer to do with most people, then you are simply wrong. It is sourced. You say the same about particular wording. That, too, is sourced. What I wrote in that list item is entirely supported by the cited sourcing.

You call some of the statements "accus[ations]". That's your choice. We can respect what these feminists have contributed to feminist and general discourse. If you don't wish to, that's your choice and outside of Wikipedia's concern. You can so decline even if you agree with most of feminism.

Whether you meant PLP or BLP, PLP doesn't apply and BLP was not violated, even for the living, for what was written in this article. I'm respecting what feminists wrote and chose to say. These were not typographical errors that happened to produce unintended results (the Columbia Journalism Review has published newspapers' errors of that sort). You can disagree with some or all of the advocacies, and I disagree with some, but that's not relevant. You can choose not to spend your time and effort adding them to Wikipedia, but I choose to do so (within limits), and your choice of how you spend your time and energy is not binding on me. I prefer to note feminists' contributions to societal discourse and that is easily within BLP. Some are still quite alive.

More specifically, BLP does not allow contentious content. Each of these specific advocacies likely is not contentious to its advocate; in part, that's why they advocate it. The advocacy is of a sort rejected by most feminists and most other people of any political persuasion, but it is not legally a crime, and BLP allows reporting criminal convictions even against the convict's wishes (e.g., Sante Kimes and the Talk archive).

As to WP:PSTS on primary and secondary sources, the language you quote about "experiences" you extend to "theories ... and advocacies". That is not in the policy, and for good reason. Plenty of secondary sources in science, history, and theology, to pick just some areas of scholarship, state theories and advocacies and remain secondary even for the passages in which they so theorize or advocate. If a doctor of cardiology writes a book analyzing scientific studies and including the doctor's own theory that aspirin relieves some heart problems and advocates taking aspirin for that purpose, and is even the first doctor ever to do so, those very passages remain secondary. On the other hand, if the doctor says "I take aspirin for this purpose", that's experiential and therefore primary, but if the doctor says "you should", that's theoretical or advocacy and therefore nonexperiential and therefore that secondary source remains secondary. The same is true of feminism. There are primary sources in feminism including on matriarchal advocacy; but matriarchal advocacy does not make an otherwise-secondary source primary.

Secondary sources are not limited to meta-analyses.

Consider a source you offered in your first post in this topic/section, the source offered presumably as secondary (which it is): American Feminism, by Prof. Ginette Castro, specifically a passage you quoted from p. 73–74. Her book has 265 endnotes and its Bibliography cites 75 items. What the passage says cannot be traced with particular literalness either to what it analyzes (Valerie Solanas' Manifesto) or to any other source since it locally has no endnotes (n. 12 is earlier on p. 73 and n. 13 is on p. 75). I consider its argument nondispositive; you might consider it dispositive; either way, the American Feminism text yet meets the test of secondariness and is citable in Wikipedia as such. We trust that she knows enough about her subject and we trust that her publisher knows enough about her to trust that she knows her subject well enough that if she goes from the sources for the book generally with no textually local citations to the conclusions she draws then her conclusions can likely be trusted enough to require that any dispute should be grounded in another source that is about equally trusted. (I question whether a professor of language and culture is qualified to analyze in psychology, but your citing it presumably satisfies you for that concern.) Her book meets the criterion of being a secondary source. That applies not only to sources in mainstream and liberal feminism; a radical feminist source can also be secondary, even if stating conclusions originated by the source's author. Gyn/Ecology, by Mary Daly, meets that test.

I do indeed attribute statements, including stated viewpoints. The article is extensively sourced.

Citations are detailed, including page numbers in most or all cases. In occasional instances in various articles where I cite an entire work or cite to passim, that is justified in context. If you wish more detail regarding a citation, point to where and what. Most citations are full. You may be complaining about citations elsewhere that I did not edit. You say, "[y]ou don't mention the specific books that are alleged to contain examples of advocacy"; that's flatly false. Citations are extensive.

Wikiquote and Wikipedia content that I wrote or edited are not identical and there's no confusion between the two Wikimedia projects. You wrote, "you've posted the exact same things about the authors"; what I posted significantly overlap in some areas but that's appropriate and, taken as wholes, they're not "the exact same things".

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (accesses were performed between Apr. 30th last and today)

I have been sticking to the issues and have not wronged you in any way. You, on the other hand, called me “flamethrower,” lectured me on my “damaged credibility” and accused me of wanting to “distroy” this article. That was an ad hominem, unsupported personal attack. It was a lie. You may think it’s fair game to insult and disrespect other editors, but it isn’t. I haven’t picked it up the gauntlet so far, so your point about letting bygones be bygones is moot.

One of us favors pretending that his description of Solanas’ text (and all other texts in the relevant section) is the only valid one, and the other does not. If I may remind you, you were the editor who added Solanas’ text to the section “advocacy of matriarchy” and pretended that his interpretation of her work was accurate, neutral, and the only valid one despite the fact that you failed to mention the many sources that contradict your interpretation and view Solanas’ Manifesto as a parody or satire. I was the editor who argued that your interpretation of Solanas’ text was not the only valid or significant one and provided sources that disagree with your interpretation of Solanas’ text.

I agree that one source isn’t “dispositive” and sometimes as bad s or worse than no sources at all. I beg you to bear that in mind next time you use sources like the fringe extremist “Palestine Solidarity Review” to advance your point that one particular Jewish feminist was a matriarch (and fascist, and white supremacist etc.) or no source at all, which seems to be your usual modus operandi.

As for the Ginette Castro book, of course it is not “dispositive.” This is why I provided multiple sources and keep telling you that it’s important to attribute opinions like I did here for example.

It’s intriguing that you believe you are more up on Valerie Solanas and feminism than the three reliable sources I provided and that you are qualified to decide whether a particular author makes a “strong case” and whether Solanas’ work got a “reasonable treatment” from you. The truth is that your treatment of Solanas’ work was anything but reasonable because you ignored the fact that there are as many if not more sources out there which disagree with your interpretation. Actually, you provided no sources that agree with you interpretation. The The Nation source says that SCUM was a literary device, and Echols says that SCUM is an example of “misandry” rather than any kind of matriarchy, or an advocacy of female government. The rest was your interpretative input, i.e., original research.

This article is not about Solanas’s work but this article is about the serious accusation that Solanas’ advocated matriarchy. You have no sources that agree with you (Echols and the The Nation article don’t) and three sources that disagree with you. So how exactly was your treatment of Solanas’ text “reasonable”?

You wrote in the past that if you “read something that appeared erroneous but about which [you] knew too little to edit usefully” you “stayed out.” Here you admit that you knew too little about the reception of the Solanas’ text, but still felt qualified to present your interpretation as the only valid one. Methinks that these are inconsistent with each other. I had every right to voice my concerns and provide sources that your depiction of the Solanas’text was biased.

To use your example: When an “excellent mathematician” describes a mathematical axiom but fails to mention that the other half or more of “excellent mathematicians” have expressed strong objections to the validity of that axiom, that mathematician misrepresents research by way of omission and will never be regarded as “excellent” by his peers. So much for your example.

It wasn’t my point that Solanas’ text can be and was read as making fun of patriarchy. It’s not my style to use my own opinion. The sources I provided say that Solanas’ work was a satire or parody or a literary device. You wrote that a "reader can project anything they like into anything they read". Finally, the breakthrough! I think that now you understand what I have been trying to say. Yes, a reader can project anything they like into anything they read. This is why I have been asking you to refrain from interpreting texts yourself and use reliable sources instead as a basis for your edits! You say “you are going by her words.” Didn’t you just say that a “reader can project anything they like into anything they read”? It isn’t your job to “go by her words” to offer us your interpretation of hew words. You need reliable sources that “go by her words” and then you need to attribute the interpretations to the sources per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Nick Levinson, please provide a quote where I say that “research into sources is forbidden.” I can provide you dozens of quotes where I say “please provide reliable sources” or “please inform yourself prior to editing” and similar things. But I have certainly never said that research into sources is forbidden. On the contrary, I encourage it and I encourage research in all directions especially because you have excluded all sources so far that disagree with your opinion. So please be so kind to provide a quote that justifies your assumption that I think that “research into sources is forbidden.” I think you and I have trouble understanding each other and so far you’ve made a marvelous job of making it seem as if this ineffective communication is due to my verbiage, but I think that now we are finally onto a more basic problem on your side.

The Mary Daly list item is unsourced. It is unsourced because Wikipedia does not accept your interpretations, i.e., original research, as a source. It is unsourced because you analyzed, synthesized, interpreted, and evaluated the material yourself and refuse to give me a reliable source which corroborates your interpretative input.

So, I suppose you have some sort of inside information as to my opinions and my “real concerns”? I don't think I have ever been so indiscreet as to detail those particular things. Also, your accusation that I am “trying to prevent discussion” is uncivil and entirely unjustified.

I meant WP:BLP. WP:OR is even more important when coupled with WP:BLP. WP:OR states:’’ “Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.‘’ and ‘’Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not ‘’’directly and explicitly’’’ supported by the source, you are engaging in original research’’

You did analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself and even if the texts were reliable secondary sources (as you claim against all evidence), then your position that the authors advocated matriarchy would still not be directly and explicitly supported by their books. Therefore, the Chesler list item, for example, ignored both WP:BLP and WP:OR.

It is your opinion that the authors advocate matriarchy. The only source that agrees so far is the fringe extremist “Palestine Solidarity Review.” Not a reliable source by any standard. Therefore, your contentious, unreferenced claims go against WP:BLP.

WP:PSTS provides links to the articles about primary sources and secondary sources. The distinction between the two is very clear:

In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.

You can see that a personal advocacy cannot be a secondary source. A primary source, on the other hand, describes “material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.” What could be closer to an author than her own opinions, theories, or advocacies? You could use Daly’s book as a secondary source for the other research she discusses but it is clearly a primary source for her own advocacy. Luckily, there is no need for me to explain. You are the one who needs to convince me and not the other way around because Wikipedia states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, you. I have given you ample time to provide references other than your own interpretation and I have made reasonable efforts to find supporting sources myself and all I found were sources that said that the authors were “man-haters” (like Echols about Solanas, for instance). You could try to post about it on the original research noticeboard and ask other editors if the books are primary or secondary sources. Should there be a consensus that the sources are secondary, you still need another consensus that says that the sources “directly and explicitly” support your interpretation. If you manage to reach consensus regarding both issues, then the community has spoken and I will support the content.

Did I say secondary sources were limited to meta-analyses? It’s the same thing with your accusation that I think that “research into sources is forbidden.” How do you come by these assumptions about me?

Ginette Castro discusses Valerie Solanas’ text. It is a written account from the perspective of a different person than the person who wrote the primary source. It is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. She doesn’t provide her own opinion, theory or advocacy about “eliminating men.” It is secondary with regards to the Solanas text. Moreover, the source “directly and explicitly” supports what is being said even if it were a primary source (which it isn’t) and therefore it would be acceptable even as a primary source.

You say you do “indeed attribute statements” and that the article is “extensively sources.” I have cited Wikipedia policy that states unambiguously that original research does not qualify as sources. Now let us examine if you really attribute opinions. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV states:

Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Before I attributed the POV to the Palestine Solidarity Review the Dworkin list item was this:

Andrea Dworkin raised the question of women's sovereignty[64] and argued that women should fight to create their own country, Womenland, comparable to Israel[65] and a "state"[66] in which "females rule supreme above males"[66] if gender equality is not imposed.[66]

Does this passage attribute the opinion to the Palestine Solidarity Review that has been described as a “fringe extremist group? No, it doesn’t. It was I, not you, Nick Levinson, who attributed the opinion to the Palestine Solidarity Review and rewrote the list item and I did the same with the Cheslerlist item where I attributed the POV to Spender. So Nick Levinson, you do indeed ‘’not’’ attributed statements and your claim that you do is flatly false.

Wikiquote is the right place for the citations and you already figured that out because you posted all the strategically selected quotes there. Wikipedia would be the right place for those quotes if they directly and explicitely supported your interpretation, i.e., if Daly said, for instance, “I support matriarchy and female supremacy” or something that could be unambiguously read as advocacy of matriarchy, but they don’t directly and explicitly support you interpretations. Therefore they are original research because ”[e]ven with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not ‘’’directly and explicitly’’’ supported by the source, you are engaging in original research”. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim or write that anyone is fascist or white supremacist, either in my own words or from PSR.

A source and no sources are arithmetically unequal. A source is not no sources.

I did not compare my ability to judge Valerie Solanas' work to that of the authors of two of the three sources, since I haven't seen them yet. I'm entitled to judge the one I saw but even so agreed that it probably should be cited in the article, so I don't know why you object that I did what any editor should do when considering adding a source. I had already written that the Manifesto was controversial within feminism.

Re WP:PSTS, what you quoted from one of the off-Wikipedia documents supports what I did.

The balance has already been answered or can be from what's already present.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You argue that the accusations made by an unknown activist in the Palestine Solidarity Review are valid and that the source itself is reliable despite what I believe to be undeniable evidence to the contrary. The accusations are: fascist, white supremacist and female supremacist. The accusations are fringe theories at best. You inserted this unreliable source along with its fringe theories (although some are so ridiculous, they don't even deserve that label) into the article.

I did object to the fact that you presentedv your interpretation of the SCUM Manifesto as the only accurate and valid one and conveniently failed to mention the sources that contradict your interpretation. So I objected on grounds of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You may believe that the "evidence" that PSR is unreliable is "undeniable", but it is unsubstantiated and is in an op-ed opinion piece in an Israeli newspaper with PSR being antizionist. That the core views of the Israeli newspaper and PSR are diametrically opposed politically and perhaps existentially, that op-ed pieces and their positions are not necessarily endorsed by op-eds' publishers (in this case the newspaper), and that the charge in the op-ed piece is unsubstantiated even in that newspaper's op-ed piece means that the evidence is wholly inadequate to support a charge of unreliability almost anywhere, including here.

The PSR content you removed is sourced to a named reviewer, thus not an "unknown activist" as you describe her (maybe she was an activist or maybe not, I don't recall anything saying one way or the other, but she clearly was not "unknown") and was marked in the article as "her view", and, as such, is valid for the purpose of reporting in Wikipedia. I didn't add it to Wikipedia because I agreed with it. I added it because it's a secondary source about Andrea Dwortkin's work, and belongs in the article for that reason. You wrote, "The accusations are: fascist, white supremacist and female supremacist." To the extent her writings are those, we may perhaps agree they are, but what matters here is the content that may be added to this Wikipedia article, and your claim amounts to a claim for censorship because the content is controversial. Wikipedia accepts controversial content. Radical feminism, the particular patriarchy that is most gynocidal, zionism, the belief that there will be no Arab problem because there will be no Arabs, and the desire to push Israel into the sea are all reportable in Wikipedia. Discussion of and disagreement with all such theses are left to readers. We do not edit out that with which we strongly disagree.

Some fringe theories are reportable, including those I included. In this case, the PSR content, if it is fringe, is criticism of what Scapegoat presents, and, of course, Scapegoat is by a notable author, so, even if Scapegoat is fringe, the notability of its author means it is reportable in Wikipedia. I have not exceeded that.

I am already aware of your objection to what I wrote on SCUM Manifesto. I believe I already corrected you regarding your accusations, but I accept that you are now stating those of your accusations in the past tense. However, I think you may have posted that in response to my request in my next-to-last post above (21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)), to wit: "I reaffirm my earlier post in this topic as it states my plan respecting that book [Manifesto]. You seem to object even to that plan. Please state why." I think you have not stated a present objection to my plan. That means, despite your taking space with reiteration of a past charge no longer relevant, that you are not now criticizing my plan. Thank you, although I prefer that you state such positions more openly. An assumption of good faith would save one or both of us a lot of time.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Section "advocacy of matriarchy"

The section seems to consist of strategically picked quotes to suggest that the handful of books and people advocate female superiority. Are there reliable sources that corroborate this slant?

Also, after quoting said books, the section drifts off to discuss "feminist nationalism" and "female leadership." Is "feminist nationalism" the same as matriarchy (and, as the section seems to suggest, female supremacy)? Is a country that has a female leader, Germany, for instance, a matriarchy? Also what about this statement "[w]hile the concrete political goals of feminist nationalisms will vary according to context, some common goals may include a restructuring of power relations within patriarchal families, fighting violence against women and insisting on an equality of rights under the law." strikes you as matriarchy-ish?

The section tries so hard to prove a point but I very much doubt the NPOV of this section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing was quoted out of context so as to make nonadvocacy into advocacy. Secondary sources are given and so are balancing criticisms (and more of the latter are coming). The position is not a majority view of all of feminism and doesn't have to be; the criticisms, which are extensive, keep the advocacy section NPOV. Whether Germany is a matriarchy (it's probably not, based on I know) is not important to the article; that a German advocate is cited in the article doesn't mean that Germany has to be matriarchal. Female leadership and female nationalism are well within matriarchy, which is defined to include both, and so the sentence you quote, being about female nationalisms, is about part of matriarchy. I'll consider the stylistic issue of drifting (my computer time will end soon and I want to return). On racism, it is also legitimate to point out in a Wikipedia article that racists believe in racist government (when they do and when it's sourced, and it probably is, amply). Nick Levinson (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick, could you provide some sources for your assertion that female leadership (I assume you mean political leadership) and female nationalism equals matriarchy?

I mentioned Germany because it's one of the few countries that has a female leader but could in no way be considered a "matriarchy." I didn't even notice the German advocate you mentioned.

I'm not sure what your sentence about racism means. I don't think that you mean to compare feminism to racism, although one could read it like that. Yes, of course, racists believe in "racist government." But do feminists, you know, those who advocate equality (although you seem disagree), advocate female supremacy? You say yes based on your interpretation of a few sources but I'd really like a reliable source do the interpretation. If you have a source that says "XYZ advocated female supremacy" or matriarchy or whatever, then that would settle this. But in the absence of such sources I think the section is too long, too much essay-style, and too dependent on your interpretation of the few sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

After the lede are definitions of matriarchy. Every possible synonym does not have to be given. And female nationalism and female leadership does not "equal" matriarchy, but are within the definitions of matriarchy, e.g., "'government by mothers, or more broadly, government and power in the hands of women'". Thus, they belong.

Racism and feminism are, of course, opposites (putting aside that they address different people).

Nowhere did I say that feminists who believe in equality simultaneously believe in inequality. By far, most feminists believe in equality and I've said so in various contexts. A minority (and I said that), a significant minority over the years, believe in having more power than men have. We report both, with extensive secondary sourcing. The sources are in the footnotes (I have to trim a few but will get to that and trimming doesn't mean removing any sources).

I hadn't claimed that Germany or any nation with one woman at the head is a matriarchy.

WP includes articles on very disturbing subjects. I would not want to be on the receiving end of Valerie's knife or gun (if real), or anyone else's, but that doesn't matter to the editing of Wikipedia.

I plan to revert two edits next time I'm online; I'll explain in the edit summaries.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to come to a consensus about whether the article should cover all proposals that "women should have more power than men", and we are also left with the task of deciding whether a formulation does or doesn't amount to that. "Female nationalism" could mean a number of things, remembering that straight "nationalism" doesn't necessarily mean that you want your nation to have more power than others. (Scottish Nationalist Party, for example, doesn't propose that Scotland should rule the world.) Many second-wave feminists gave long, complex, carefully nuanced, or confused and ambiguous explanations of where they stood on these points. I'm sure that someone, for example, said that women should have power in the female sphere, and then that the female sphere was the only important one. That kind of marginalises male power - or perhaps it leaves it intact? We haven't got space to go into all the debates, so we need some kind of criteria for what we mention. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My standard for whose proposals to cover has been whether the proposers are notable; all their names are linked except for the one about Hindu nationalism, which may not be associated with one individual leader as advocate but has a secondary source.

Female nationalism had been apparently rejected by Ti-Grace Atkinson; it is thus discussed among Criticisms. I'm being generous in including more criticisms in order to avoid risking NPOV. She was/is a feminist leader who was very much part of the discussion of women's governance.

I've avoided advocacies with unclear conclusions, although whether they're logically grounded is less important than whether they're stated or understood as being in this field. On Valerie Solanas, I'll look for more sourcing, since it appears her purpose was debatable, and we should cover that.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, not worried about whether the views are logically coherent, just about whether we can present them succinctly without distorting them. The Ti-Grace Atkinson rejection of "female nationalism" is much too convoluted and second-hand to be worth mentioning. It is fine to look for whether the authors are notable, but what's also at issue is whether their discussion of matriarchy or related concepts is notable. If it is just a throwaway comment that was not part of any wider debate, then we can do without it. The Criticism section shouldn't stand alone but should be merged into the "Advocacy". Only then can the reader hope to have a handle on how this question stood within feminist thought. A chronological presentation might help to structure it, show how the debate unfolded (to the extent that there was any debate). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Nick. Female leadership doesn't mean female government, or "government and power in female hands." Please don't be cross with me if I mention Germany again. Germany has a female chancellor, and by definition, Germany has a female leadership. But Germany doesn't have a female government because the political power is still largely in male hands. You are the one who wants to include things. Please source them, is all I ask.

The extensive secondary sourcing is not there although your style of sourcing makes it look like it is. The majority of the claims aren't attributed to anyone. You offer us your interpretations but you don't provide sources that uphold those interpretations. Picking direct quotes, arranging them, and then saying, "look here, XYZ said this and that and that exemplifies her advocacy of matriarchy." Whose interpretation is that? Are other interpretations possible? Does the advocacy extend to only that one book or was advocacy of matriarchy her entire life project? If I wanted, could I find quotes in Dworkin's entire body of work that show that she advocated equality instead of matriarchy? Many questions.

Nick, if you imply that I have a problem with matriarchy or with people who advocate matriarchy, please understand that I do not. I wrote several times that certain passages of the section are great because the claims are attributed to a specific author and presented as the opinion of said author instead of the one and only possible interpretation. I have a problem with the fact that you use direct quotes, arrange them as you see fit, and then say: "This is how it is." If we are being technical, you would have to write:" Nick Levinson, Wikipedia editor, argues that Mary Daly's use of sentences like '___' and words like '___' means that her book '___' could be interpreted as advocating a certain form of female government." You get the gist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are making a very serious charge about quoting against context (I'm not) and also making a pre-emptive charge (I did not propose to include any nation today headed by one woman so your charge about Germany is pre-emptive and irrelevant). I expect to be back online Saturday to explain then. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not require of any other authors what you propose to require of feminist advocates.

Nothing one chooses has to be anyone's life work. George Bush was a baseball team owner and neither his political career nor his business career are invalid because he may not have made either his life's work, but split his work life. Disagreeing with his actions in either career also does not invalidate either career: he continues to have been President and continues to have been a team owner. Thurgood Marshall said all he had to do was be Black and die; others say taxes; but these are not chosen works.

No advocate has to have the same belief throughout life or we couldn't cite most feminists on any feminist issue. Most people change their minds about important views. So do most scholars. (One scholar, challenged for changing his mind, reputedly said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?") If changing was invalidating of later views, education would be pointless and little content of any kind would be in Wikipedia. Andrea Dworkin had an antiessentialist view years before writing Scapegoat; her Womenland concept may be essentialist; her having one view earlier does not invalidate her later advocacy; I cited both in the article, one as criticism.

We're not to argue whether the advocates are persuasive. It doesn't even matter whether most feminists were persuaded to agree with the advocacies. What matters is whether the advocacies were a significant part of feminist discourse. They were. We can report the important discourse.

It's true I want to "include things" but I never planned to add without limit, randomly, or in violation of the standards. Speculative accusations about what I might be thinking of and then repeating the speculative charges do not belong here, and that includes Germany. You're welcome to advise on any possible editing. Charging me with bad intent is another matter. Even by implication.

On nations headed by women, two points: One, I recall Bill Clinton's presidency described as matriarchal because it was possible for a significant policy, even when not mainly for women, to be developed exclusively by women until it finally got to Bill, but the sourcing I think I'd find would likely be too trivial in content to support reporting that case in Wikipedia. However, if a like case was or became important in some nation (the head of state male and most of his policymakers female), that could be reportable insofar as relevant; I know no such case myself. If you do, please cite it. The other point is that a woman as head of state was said to have been objected to by a founder of a major religion, one still influential against women becoming heads of state. That objection I plan to add shortly as a criticism.

Some of your criticism is redundant of another Talk topic/section. I've replied there.

Now I'll switch gears, to respond to another editor, albeit also openly for all editors.

Notability is a standard for an entire article's subject, not for each statement or source in it. Some standard is, of course, apropos and trivia already doesn't belong.

The female nationalism was entered under Criticisms. I'll look to reword it more simply; I want to think about how. I didn't define or interpret "female nationalism" in any particular way, leaving that to the source. Whether one nation objects to another nation or to the rest of the world is a matter separate from who governs whom (I assume the folks in Scotland who are nationalist want folks of Scotland to govern Scotland, regardless of wanting to govern England or Wales). Because the female nationalism entry is a criticism, even if female nationalism is about both matriarchy and not, the critique is reportable. I'll work on rephrasing and maybe moving it down.

None of the advocacies I cited were trivial or throwaway mentions in the original sources. None are about stubbing a toe and wanting to kill whichever man arranged the furniture. All are substantial advocacies, some longer than others but none mere typos. I was concerned about not misrepresenting but it turned out that we could quote enough to accurately represent an author's intent and still fit in an article, whether the source was primary or secondary.

I haven't included separatist advocacies. There's another article for them.

The concept of separate spheres was a line of thinking that reflects now partly in difference feminism; I have not included that unless it was about women governing men, and it usually wasn't.

On criticisms as separate: Not all dialogue between advocacy and criticism is direct. Mostly, each replied to abstraction. If we integrate critique into advocacy, we'll still have enough critique to stand alone in a subsubsection. And some critique is already integrated (see the discussion on The Feminists and Ti-Grace Atkinson's adjacent criticism). Perhaps more can be moved, but a section will likely be needed for what's left. A chronology is easier for the advocacies, since they're generally dated, but harder for the criticisms, because many sources go back over time. If we delete too many criticisms, we'll be left with POV. An antiessentialist critique, for example, may apply to many advocacies, so it can't be put next to just one, especially if we don't know which one is grounded in essentialism (assuming all unless proven otherwise would be incorrect). I think having a section is the best solution, but I'll look (again) to see if some part can be moved.

Switching gears again:

Clearly, mention of the Manifesto brings up a lot of emotion, even these days. That by itself is not reportable in a Wikipedia article. But the book, and the proposed/satirized/parodied relationship of women to men, was not a flash in a pan. It has not been forgotten. The work itself has been published in at least four editions plus one self-published and at least one book-text website; not so few for a book only a few decades old. The sources you listed, even if they all critique the book, collectively suggest the Manifesto has strong relevance.

I'm going to do some of the editing shortly that I wanted to do earlier. What I don't finish today I'll try to do tomorrow. This, just yesterday and today, has taken me hours. Please, let's try to assume good faith and see if we can work together, by focusing on actual disagreement/s to find what's acceptable.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence on female nationalism, so the phrase doesn't appear in the body and so the sentence is simpler to read. I kept the location and conformed the footnote, which still mentions female nationalism but out of the usual reader's way. The drift problem is now solved, I think.

I didn't find anything in Criticisms to move into the rest of the section. The advocacies are organized largely, first, by whether matriarchy was explicitly influential and, secondly, by who did the advocating. The criticisms, on the other hand, are organized largely by the kind of criticism. As a result, there's no one-to-one relationship apparent, and integrating would produce a very cumbersome text that most readers would have difficulty disentangling. It is generally preferred to integrate critique but, in Wikipedia, having a separate section is an acceptable alternative.

Thanks for the points.Nick Levinson (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (Removed an erroneous word: 21:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

You wrote "Female leadership and female nationalism are well within matriarchy." I tried to explain to you that while all matriarchies (casual reminder, there has never been one!) have female leadership, not all countries with female leaderships are matriarchies. It's the old distinction between a necessary and sufficient condition. Meaning: Female leadership is not matriarchy, unless you can source it. So all the stuff in the article about female leadership and female nationalism must be removed because it has not been established that those two things are the same as matriarchy.

It is true that we don't require of some sources what we do require of others. For instance, we don't seem to require anything of the sources that are being added to articles like masculism, men's rights etc. But what of it? Just because people are too busy or lazy to monitor the quality of other Wikipedia articles and their sources, doesn't mean that we have to become slackers in regards to sources that we use. Yes?

But what you do here goes beyond the use of unreliable sources because 'you use no sources for many (note, not all!) of your claims. Example: Paragraph about Mary Daly. From beginning to end it's your reading of the book. But I used direct quotes and "citations never lie", you will say. I say, a) you don't have direct quotes that say that the author in question advocates matriarchy and b) you can't provide any sources that support your interpretation of the text which means that your interpretation is wrong or undue.

Nick, since your little lecture on my "damaged credibility" which came in the aftermath of your reduced and biased depiction of SCUM, I refuse to reply to your claims about my "accusations." I think I have said extremely positive things about your work and the things I criticized I criticized on the grounds of Wikipedia policy rather than some trivial beef with you. You, on the other hand, have tried to trivialize my objections. I'm taking a break from this conversation so knock yourself out with your replies.

When I come back, I'll delete the paragraph about Mary Daly unless you provide a source that supports your interpretation of her book as a matriarchal text. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Female leadership and female nationalism are discussed as qualifications or limitations and as a source title. However, I will consider how these may be clarified (except that the title does not need clarifying). I'll look at these again over the next few days. I think the best approach may be to continue using the phrases but explain what is not included in the context of this article.

The issue about modern-day countries with female leadership (your issue) is premised on those countries really being patriarchal. Patriarchies are not matriarchies. No one here claimed they are. Female leadership and female nationalism are discussed largely as abstractions and disputed goals. As such, they are relevant to matriarchy and this article.

That Wikipedia articles are not entirely consistent is true, but to require that an author is sourceable only if their information is their life work or that they have never changed their mind prior to their publishing what we later cite is far beyond any Wikipedia standard.

Mary Daly's writing of "'the place we ['[w]omen traveling into feminist time/space'] govern'" is a writing of matriarchy; any possible distinction there from matriarchy is too trivial to require further sourcing. Matriarchy includes women doing the principal governing. Her list item would cause undue weight if it were in, say, the Feminism article, which is introductory, but is not undue in this article, which is specialized to matriarchy.

If, say, a hundred notable feminists had sourceably advocated for matriarchy, the inability to fit them into one article limited to 100 KiB might require more selectivity, such as that only those whom someone else had highlighted should be listed. We don't have such an overabundance here. There are sourceable much more than enough to be significant, but they'll fit and there's no reason for readers not to know of them.

Your "casual reminder" is irrelevant, since the section is about advocacy, not about actual matriarchies, which are discussed elsewhere.

If you think I'm "trivializ[ing your] ... objections", maybe you're not making the statements you intend, since I'm responding to what you're writing.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed content regarding the Hindu references to female leadership and female nationalism and clarified regarding Ti-Grace Atkinson's work. I now agree that the Hindu content was relatively weak. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if you tried to clarify (using sources!) the relationship between advocacy of matriarchy and female leadership and female nationalism. As I've tried to explain the terms "female leadership" and "female nationalism" need solid definitions because wanting a woman president (which would qualify as wanting "female leadership") can hardly be seen as a matriarchal aspiration.

I have never required that "an author is sourceable only if their information is their life work or that they have never changed their mind." I have no idea why you would think that I did.

If it is a writing of matriarchy then, surely, you must be able to provide a reliable source. All I'm asking is that you provide a source that says something to the effect that it is a writing of matriarchy.

Yes, I saw that your removed the content and I think it was a good move. Not because, as you never tire to say, I may "have a problem with the subject" but simply because I agree that the content was week. All in all, I think that your recent edits were very positive but I already said that.

I think you're not only trivializing my objections but that you are also displaying disrespect toward me as a person and as an editor by calling me a "flamethrower," accusing me of wanting to destroy this article and lecturing me on my "damaged credibility." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to "[y]es, I would appreciate it if you tried to clarify (using sources!) the relationship between advocacy of matriarchy and female leadership and female nationalism....": I don't need to, since the concerning material is already gone before the posting. Ti-Grace Atkinson is already elsewhere relevant in the article.

I responded to your questions, "[d]oes the advocacy extend to only that one book or was advocacy of matriarchy her entire life project?" and "If I wanted, could I find quotes in Dworkin's entire body of work that show that she advocated equality instead of matriarchy?" Assuming that was meant to be relevant to whether content should be in the article (otherwise the questions seem pointless on this page), one could infer that you were proposing that only authors whose entire life project was advocacy of matriarchy should be reported and that if Andrea Dworkin had said something contradictory earlier then her later statements should not be reported and therefore that only sources who have not changed their minds on major matters in adulthood could be sources for Wikipedia. If those are not your positions now, fine.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"[O]ne could infer that you were proposing that only authors whose entire life project was advocacy of matriarchy should be reported... " Wrong. I am asking you to be more careful and neutral in your depictions. Instead of writing that Andrea Dworkin allegedly advocated matriarchy, you should write that the accusation refers to one book, a specific book, not her entire life project. This enhances neutrality. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was exactly as careful and neutral as you ask. The list item begins, "In her book Scapegoat ...." Nowhere does the list item say the rest of her writing or life work says the same thing, nor does it have to, since that's appropriate for an article about her book or her and need not be repeated in this article, there being the purpose and sufficiency of cross-linking. I think the first time I wrote of her contribution in this article was in January; that version, too, does not say that all of her work was about Womenland, it cites the book where she introduces the issue, and it includes two other sources about her work even back then, so neutrality was present then as now. And, of course, neither version is accusatory of her. I am pleased to have met your request in advance. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (accesses were performed between Apr. 30th last and today)

It's good thing that I can refute your claims very easily using diffs. Before my rewrite of the Dworkin list item the passage stated:

Andrea Dworkin raised the question of women's sovereignty[64] and argued that women should fight to create their own country, Womenland, comparable to Israel[65] and a "state"[66] in which "females rule supreme above males"[66] if gender equality is not imposed.[66]

It was only after I rewrote the list item that the section started with "In her book, Scapegoat ..."

In her book Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women’s Liberation, Andrea Dworkin stated that she wanted women to have their own country which, comparable to Israel, would serve as a "place of potential refuge."[64] In the Palestine Solidarity Review, Veronica A. Ouma reviewed the book and argued that while Dworkin "pays lip service to the egalitarian nature of [stateless societies without hierarchies], she envisions a state whereby women either impose gender equality or a state where females rule supreme above males."[65]

Therefore, you didn't meet my requests to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I attributed the opinions in the two list items about Dworkin and Chesler, you didn't. You were quite content with concealing the source of the interpretation, which is the Palestine Solidarity Review, a source that doesn't qualify as a reliable source.

Please be more accurate and neutral in the futre and please be more honest in your discussion comments. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In your post of Apr. 30, 2011, 2:47p UTC, you wrote "you should write that ... [it] refers to one book, a specific book". This was after your last edits to the article, not before. I replied, "The list item begins, 'In her book Scapegoat ....'" Therefore, your post was made when what you said was the problem was already solved. Even when you or another editor is the one to solve a problem, repeating a charge is irrelevant to efforts to edit the article in the future and is therefore to be taken as currently applicable, since that is what this talk page is for.

Attribution of a POV or of anything else from a source is just as much an attribution when done in a footnote as in the main text. The attribution was provided for neutrality.

Footnoting is not concealing. The source was cited.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a general problem with your contributions to this article that you don't attribute POVs. I ask you to be more careful, then "solve the problem" for you, only to have you deny that you don't attribute POVs.

Footnote attribution isn't good enough according to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV:

Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre."

Just do it, can you? With a subject matter like this and claims like "she's a female supremacist" please attribute POVs in the main text, especially if the sources are as questionable as the Palestine Solidarity Review. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of the passages already had the attributions in the main text before you wrote that I should add them ("[j]ust do it"). The Andrea Dworkin list item already said, "In the Palestine Solidarity Review, Veronica A. Ouma reviewed the book and argued her view ...", and that was present when you removed it (I assume you read it when you were removing it). The proposed Phylis Chesler list item already named Dale Spender in the main text, and so did the current version.

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not say that attribution can only be in the main text, the baseball case looking like an example, but when the issue of where to attribute is simply between a footnote or the main text I don't generally object to the latter (I might if there were many for one statement, in which case footnotes would likely suffice). There is no general problem of my failing to attribute.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of Dworkin paragraph

I edited the Dworkin paragraph based entirely on the basis of the two secondary sources. One may argue if the second source which is more concerned with defending and promoting Palestine interests and discrediting Dworkin as an agent of white supremacy, fascism and whatnot (no, I'm not kidding!), is a good source. Also, I'll add sources that emphasize Dworkin's struggle for equality as soon as I can. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That she had a contrary viewpoint earlier in life is already in the article. The reviewer's other views were not important to what she said as backup about the book in the context of this article. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose to re-add the book citation, as it is central to the discussion in the list item and the citation includes page numbers that otherwise don't appoear in this article, page numbers useful to Wikipedia readers. I also plan to re-add "Womenland", as that is her word, not merely someone else's, and it is relevant. If there's an objection to either, please post. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no objection. I will actually re-add the citation and the word "Womenland" myself. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I do, however, disagree about that Palestine review source. First, not everything that is published is notable or reliable. You will also find people who are willing to go on record saying that the Holocaust never happened, vaccines cause autism, and Obama is from Kenya but we don't really report it here. Also, I don't really know if Wikipedia has a policy about "biased sources" and I think that the author of that review who accuses Dwokrin of all the evils under the sun qualifies as "biased." But I'm glad that I managed to enforce WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It's an improvement in my opinion. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. On that, I made technical corrections only.

I don't recall if the four-word quote is in the book; it is from her and it's in the Guardian article, so I moved the book referent to the book title, so the Guardian referent is the sole support for the four-word quote.

The period by common U.S. English writing style should be inside the quote marks even if it's not in the original but in precise writing (standard in legal writing) if it isn't in the original it goes outside the quote mark, so I moved it there. (One could bracket it inside the quote mark, but that seems excessive here.)

On the Palestinian review bias, since those other subjects either weren't in Scapegoat or they weren't part of this article, that bias issue wasn't important to this article, but I plan to leave that edit in place. It is arguable that since Scapegoat is premised partly on the reality of the Holocaust the reviewer's bias on point is relevant, although I'm not sure. It would be clearly relevant in an article on the Holocaust or Holocaust denial, and if that article is already crowded with lots of similar stuff a subarticle may be apropos.

Not everything cited has to be notable. Notability is a standard for the subject of an entire Wikipedia article, not for each fact in it, nor for each source cited.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic note: Please follow WP:INCITE because that would improve the readability of the article. WP:INCITE states that "it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." It is nonsensical to put the exact same citation after "Womenland" and after "refuge" because it is obvious that the citation supports the entire sentence. What is the purpose of putting the ref after "The Jews, Israel, and Women’s Liberation"? To provide evidence that Dworkin really did write the books? All you do is clutter the sentence with the citations which should be placed at the end of the sentence. I will change it back.

Palestine Solidarity Review I wrote earlier that Dworkin is dead and that WP:BLP is no longer an issue, otherwise the claims would be gone in a heartbeat. However, the requirement to use reliable and if possible high quality sources isn't limited to biographies of living persons. WP:QS says that “[q]uestionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion [...] They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." The Jerusalem Post, for instance, speaks of "the fringe extremist groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Review" and I am sure that the Palestine Solidarity Review does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It doesn't seem to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and isn't mainstream enough to deserve being automatically viewed as reliable. I don't want to open that can of worms here, and start a discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian relations here. It suffices to say that a biased and possibly even extremist opinion piece in the very questionable Palestine Solidarity Review is not a reliable source for such a serious accusation as advocacy of supremacy.

I wish you would acknowledge the legitimacy of my concerns, but I assume you won't because you want to keep the material at all costs. I am confident that the issue will be resolved with the help of other editors or when I post about it at the RS noticeboard. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On citation position:

While citing at the end of a sentence of a paragraph is advisable for readability (lay readers tend to dislike encountering footnotes), when more than one point is in the main text and which citation supports which point wouldn't be clear, either we have to add a long-hand explanation in a long ref element or we have to position separate refs according to what is being supported by each citation. And when there are several points, editors sometimes rearrange them in the main text without checking the refs. Therefore, in such a context, and this is one of them, the clarity of what-supports-what gets priority. It's still readable, but text-source integrity is maintained.

One other problem in Wikipedia (and you may not be familiar with this) is that adjacent reference notes sometimes get swapped by editors who prefer that notes be in numerical order, and naming and unnaming of ref elements increases that chance. The relevant notes are in numerical order now, but that could change fairly easily without our noticing. If a passage says "matter matter 'quote'[1][2]" where ref 1 is for the quote and ref 2 is for the larger statement, and the refs get swapped by a later editor who may not know anything about Andrea Dworkin's work, then it will look like ref 2 is for the quote when it is not.

That's why I put the full book ref in a more general location, leaving the Guardian ref to be alone for the four-word quotation, which appears in the Guardian but not the book (per Amazon).

However, two other solutions are possible. One is to extend the passage by adding wording to follow the quote, with the added wording to be applicable to the book. Then the full book citation can go at the end. I didn't do that earlier out of a preference for concision, but I'll reconsider it, and if you come up with wording to that effect, go ahead or suggest it.

Another solution is to place the full book citation after the first mention of the book but omit the subtitle from the main text, because "Scapegoat" in the main text is sufficient when the title and the subtitle are both in the referent. If you prefer that, go ahead, or I might do that.

On PSR:

I see your point in principle (assuming PSR is unreliable, which I don't know), but PSR is not cited in this article on Israel or any of its neighbors, the apparent scope of PSR. Whether any publisher checks facts well may have to do with what subject and what perspective it is covering. In this article, the role of the PSR content is for a critique of Scapegoat. A PSR critique of Israel thus hardly matters and is hardly a factor in this article. The critique it offers of Scapegoat is germane to what Scapegoat says on point and balancing and may require very little fact-checking outside of Scapegoat, so the PSR content should be preserved. The best solution may be to describe the PSR portion as a reviewer's opinion or some such. I may do that.

On whether what Andrea Dworkin wrote and said should be considered as self-accusatory, it should not and what I edited does not say so. She is not accused, even in death.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (accesses were performed between Apr. 30th last and today)

The list item doesn't need the original source, Dworkin's Scapegoat, at all. The list item is based on two sources, the first sentence is based entirely on the Guardian article and the second sentence on the very dubious Palestine Solidarity Review review. The Guardian article quotes the term "Womenland" and also supports the larger statement so there is no need to include the original text at all. It is absolutely clear what supports what. The Guardian article supports the entire first sentence, including quote "Womenland" and the other quote. The Palestine Solidarity Review supports the entire second statement.

I appose adding wording to follow the quote because that would be yet another instance of using our own interpretation of sources which is original research. You may interpret a call for a "Womenland" as advocacy of matriarchy, but I do not, and anyway it doesn't really matter what you and I think.

I suggest leaving the list item as it is at the moment, or deleting the reference to Scapegoat altogether because the two other source support the list item.

Wikipedia urges its editors to avoid questionable sources. According to WP:QS, “[q]uestionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion [...] They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." There is no evidence that the PSR is a reliable source, and there is some evidence, see the quote from the Jerusalem Post as well as common sense) that it is a fringe extremist group.

All the other points and accusations in the article matter insofar as they reflect discredit on the reliability of the opinion piece apart from the reliability of the PSR.

The book that was reviewed was titled Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women’s Liberation and the book was written by a Jew. Hardly inconsequential information.

Of course, the best way to deal with this issue is to remove an unreliable source per WP:RS and provide a more reliable source. Would you be willing to ask uninvolved editors to comment on the reliable sources noticeboard? I don't want to do it because I'm not the one who added and wants to keep the PSR as a reference and I have my hands full reading all the sources you provided.

Nick Levinson, it's your job to know if a source is reliable prior to adding that source to Wikipedia articles. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding wording does not require OR. It depends on what that wording is.

On PSR:

It's reasonable to assume that the book's title and its author's Jewishness (whether as religion or as nationality), among other factors, influenced the author in PSR and therefore what the latter wrote, but I didn't quote or use anything from it that is clearly anti-Jewish. If I misunderstand something, such as in Jewish history, by which the used PSR content is anti-Jewish, please let me know.

The source saying that PSR is unreliable has only a passing and conclusory statement to that effect ("fringe extremist groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Review" is the entire statement). The source is an op-ed piece largely about something else (a very interesting topic but nonetheless something else). The op-ed author could be saying something that's correct about PSR, but I think before we decide that PSR is unreliable, especially for what it is being used for in this Wikipedia article, we should have something more informative for that kind of decision.

Since PSR has as its mission essentially an anti-Zionist position (for the sake of argument here we can deem that similar enough to being anti-Jewish to count PSR as anti-Jewish, if a distinction is not needed here), whether it is fringe/extremist probably should not be determined according to Jews in Israel because they would presumably disagree with most anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish positions. I'm not closely a follower of politics in Israel, but in U.S. politics it is common for Democrats to describe Republicans as extremist and Republicans to describe Democrats as extremist, especially so during primary races when voting is more by party faithful and less so for high-turnout general elections when needed independents who are offended by such characterizations against either party turn out to vote. Relevantly to here, if PSR is truly fringe, it would be fringe among Palestinians, anti-Zionists, or some related audience. (An example of fringe was a U.S.-based newsletter that primarily argued that the U.S. should institute a monarchy for the U.S., not a metaphorical monarchy but a concrete one; in the U.S., that's a fringe view, although not in England as to an English monarchy.) An anti-Zionist view may well be extremist among anti-Zionists; I don't know if that's the case with PSR. It's likely that even many strongly biased media usually check facts important to what they write about; what varies is, among other criteria, whom they trust when they check. PSR may trust anti-Zionist sources more than Zionist sources, for example. That alone would not make them fringe. I don't know whether their anti-apartheid concern against Israel (if that is their concern) is fringe among non-Israeli Middle Easterners, but I rather doubt it, even if most wouldn't use the terminology themselves except in international discourse. Certainly a large number of Israel's neighbors object to some of what Israel does and a large number to Israel's existence, so either view, if taken by PSR, does not make PSR fringe.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the Palestine Solidarity Review for the reasons mentioned above but also for the following reasons:

• The "review" was written by an unknown activist with no credentials or anything that would make her opinion more valid or reliable than that of a random blogger on the internet.
• The review was published by a questionable source with no trace of fact checking or editorial oversight. The source accepts submissions by anyone as long as they "are in broad agreement with the mission statement of the journal", the "mission" being to oppose the Zionist "oppressors".
• The review is a compilation of fringe theories and some of the claims don't even deserve that label. The fringe theories include such claims that one particular Jewish feminist is a fascist, a white supremacist, and a female supremacist.
• The feminist in question is Jewish and the "review" is more of a personal attack on the author than an actual review of the book.
• At least one other, reliable publication has called the reliability of the Palestine Solidarity Review into question. The Jerusalem Post mentions the Palestine Solidarity Review as one example of "fringe extremist groups".

If I'm not mistaken, you, Nick Levinson, suggest to ignore everything else in the source and simply focus on the claims about female superiority. You have failed to explain why, in a collection of extremist fringe theories published by an unreliable source, this is the one claim that is different. A tiny island of reliability, so to speak.

If you intend to reinsert that Palestine Solidarity Review, please go through the Reliable Sources noticeboard first or ask uninvolved editors to take a look and build a consensus. If the community should decide that the source is A-OK, I'll be glad to bow to majority opinion or convincing arguments. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The reviewer was named, thus not "unknown" as you describe her. Sources need not be by famous or notable people only, and even sources by unnamed authors are citable (this one's author, of course, is named).
• Whether the reviewer was an activist or not is not important to whether it is a source (it may be important to a reader and, if you know she's an activist and can cite a source to that effect, we likely should add that).
• It is not like a blog. Blogs have virtually no vetting by other than the author. This review was vetted by PSR. The vetting required is that relevant to what the reviewer reviewed, namely, Scapegoat. Disagreement by us with the review as used here is not proof of nonvetting by the publisher.
• Being a "questionable source" is not enough for avoidance. We've already discussed reliability. The N.Y. Times is often questionable and still citable. For the purpose of usage of the selected portion of the review in this context, PSR is acceptable.
• If you're saying that in PSR there's "no trace of fact checking", I have no source for that. The only claim you've given so far for unreliability is inadequate to show that PSR never checks facts. They may be checking facts within an antizionist framework (probably every publisher has some framework determining whom it believes); but that would not be a lack of fact-checking.
• If you're saying that in PSR there's "no trace of ... editorial oversight", you've contradicted yourself in your next sentence in writing that "[t]he source accepts submissions ... as long as they 'are in broad agreement with the mission statement of the journal'". That means that it does exercise editorial oversight. Some such "broad agreement" is true for acceptance into most publications.
• Whether it publishes other material that is fringe or that attacks the author for being Jewish is irrelevant because material not proposed for inclusion in this article need not be judged for inclusion in this article. There's probably some fringe material in The Times of London, but if it isn't proposed for inclusion in Wikipedia, other Tines content remains usable.
• The Jerusalem Post item was an op-ed opinion about PSR with no substantiation in a newspaper with a standpoint (to my knowledge) virtually the opposite of that of PSR. The two publishers disagree and perhaps for very good reason, but that is not the same as PSR being unreliable. If PSR says the same about the Post, such a claim would be no more probative, unless substantiated. To say "[a]t least one other ..." is somewhat hyperbolic; only one was cited, that being the op-ed fragment. Publishers commonly publish op-ed pieces without necessarily agreeing with them.
• The review is opinion and the Wikipedia content said it's a view. A source may be evaluated on the basis of parts not being used; for example, a book should not be a source on some facts if many similar facts in the same book are wrong. But this review insofar as used is a view and the usage instance said so. The selection from the review was what responded to what was written about in the Wikipedia article about Scapegoat, not all of Scapegoat or all of the author's work, so the rest of the review was not important for use in the article.
• The Reliable Sources noticeboard has nothing on Palestine Solidarity Review or Palestinian Solidarity Review (both searched with quotation marks and the latter being my deliberate misspelling tested just as an additional case), including on the current page.

I plan to restore the PSR content. I will wait briefly in case you wish to propose a better phrasing for it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Section “Advocacy of Matriarchy” - Phyllis Chesler

There are two sources for the paragraph about Phyllis Chesler in the section “Advocacy of matriarchy.” The first source is a piece by Carol Anne Douglas in off our backs but it hasn't actually been used as a source for anything except “Phyllis Chesler wrote...” The second and more important source is Dale Spender's book For the Record (pp. 150-154). Nick Levinson focused on one paragraph on page 151:

No matter in what form women raise the topic, there is a tactic available to men which helps to take the threat out of it, and works to consign the topic – and women – to the realm of not-to-be-taken-seriously. This by no means surprises Phyllis Chesler, who sees power very much in terms of survival, and who regards the very concept of female power as a potent challenge to male survival, and she takes a remarkable but none the less reasonable stand on what women's aspirations should be. Equality is a spurious goal, and of no use to women: the only way women can protect themselves is if they dominate particular institutions and can use them to serve women's interests. Reproduction is a case in point. She also speculates on the realisation of equality and gives implicit credence to the explanation that women are intrinsically more powerful, which is the reason why males have found it necessary to create their compensatory culture. All things being equal, Phyllis Chesler remarks (almost casually) that women will be superior, and men know it – which is why there is a real fight going on as men seek to protect and preserve their power. But in present circumstances the only real alternative that Phyllis Chesler can see to man power is woman power.

Since Chesler is alive and WP:BLP applies here, we must be very careful. Using the paragraph in the Spender book, I rewrote part the about Chesler in the “Advocacy of matriarchy” section. For instance, Spender says “dominate particular institutions” (not “dominate public and social institutions” as Nick Levinson wrote) with special focus on reproduction. I also attributed the interpretation of Chesler's book to Spender and mentioned that those claims only extend to the book Women and Madness to make the paragraph more neutral.

Spender says that Chesler wants women to “dominate particular institutions” to protect themselves. Whether this means that Chesler advocated matriarchy in Women and Madness is not clear and – unlike this Wikipedia article – Spender never actually implies such a thing. Instead, Spender describes Women and Madness as a book that “strips patriarchy down to its essence” (p. 154, last paragraph) and writes that Chesler's “theses” is that “a male-dominated society defines women as mad” (p. 154, second to last paragraph). Also, Spender specifically says on page 214: “Most of the views that Spender attributes to me, based on her excellent reading of Women and Madness are still my views. Some are not.” Moreover, on page 213, Chesler writes: “I wrote about the meaning , presence and persecution of Amazons, Great Mothers, witches – both in the context of psychological history and of female psychology. I discussed the dangers of forgetting, romanticizing, misusing, and re-creating such figures in ourselves.” Hardly the words of a matriarch. The important thing is that Spender doesn't imply that she read Women and Madness as an advocacy of matriarchy. Based on the source, Phyllis Chesler does not belong in the section “advocacy of matriarchy.” Considering WP:BLP applies here, I suggest removing the text from the section and moving it to another article or providing sources that directly support the material. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There were three sources until the above editor deleted two, Phyllis Chesler's book that is key to the advocacy and the off our backs serial's review of the book. Phyllis Chesler advocated what the list item said it advocated and her book is a source for that, therefore it should be cited for that purpose. The Carol Anne Douglas off our backs piece provides evidence both of the notability of the book (which doesn't have its own article but probably could) and of some of what Phyllis Chesler wrote for readers who want to know from someone else if her book says what it says.

What Phyllis Chesler advocated in her own book quotably in writing is necessary to report in part precisely because of BLP: There is no BLP issue since she wrote the advocacy and did not contradict it. The BLP claim has been refuted on this Talk page, in the Removal of the Claims About Valerie Solanas section, and for very good reason. As noted above, we, for example, report on crime of which a living person has been convicted even if they might prefer a different treatment. Phyllis Chesler was not commiting or inciting a crime and the article didn't say she was. She was advocating social change, a strong one to be sure, but a social change, not a crime. She published and republished her book; the newer edition had updates but the newer edition included the advocacy on which the article relied, and the same or similar advocacy was in her earlier edition as well. So she stands by it. That makes it noncontentious in the BLP sense. The advocacy is controversial. Living people do controversial things and take controversial stands and Wikipedia has many examples of the reporting of them. Her advocacy is acceptable within BLP.

In the longest quotation from Dale Spender's book, compared to a library copy of the book, "dominate" is deitalicized without that being noted (as also in requotations), the comma after "(almost casually)" is omitted without an ellipsis, and "then" after "(almost casually)" is edited to "that" without an ellipsis and brackets. In a later quotation, "theses" is substituted for "thesis" without, as far as I see, authorization. In writing "Spender ... writes that Chesler's 'theses' [sic] is that 'a male-dominated society defines women as mad' ...", Sonicyouth86 is saying, with the verb "is" and taking "theses" as singular, that Women and Madness has only one thesis in Dale Spender's view. Instead, Dale Spender wrote "[t]o accept Phyllis Chesler's thesis that a male-dominated society ..." (p. 154), which means that Dale Spender does not say that Phyllis Chesler's book has only one thesis, and therefore does not try to remove any other thesis in Women and Madness from consideration. The quotation from p. 214 omitted the comma without an ellipsis before "are still" and boldfaced the next sentence without noting that Sonicyouth86 added the boldfacing. The quotation from p. 213 boldfaced a sentence without noting that Sonicyouth86 added the boldfacing and, in that sentence, spelled "romanticising" as "romanticizing" (deboldfaced here) without an ellipsis and bracketing, added a comma after "misusing" (deboldfaced here) without bracketing the comma, and replaced the conjunction "or" with "and" (deboldfaced here) without authorization. Errors make finding the passage in Google Books harder, important when Google limits viewing. I understand wanting to boldface to emphasize a point but accurate quotation requires stating the addition of boldfacing.

The editor Sonicyouth86 says, "[f]or instance, Spender says "dominate particular institutions" (not "dominate public and social institutions" as Nick Levinson wrote) ...." In fact, where I quoted "dominate public and social institutions" (emphasis so in original) I attributed the quotation not to Dale Spender's book but to Phyllis Chesler's book—see, in the prior revision, footnote [69], which is the first footnote after the quotation and says it's for the quotation—and my attribution is accurate. In giving the impression that I misquoted Dale Spender, Sonicyouth86 is absolutely wrong. My quotation was accurate and it was accurately attributed.

Women and Madness is a secondary source. In accord with WP:PSTS , the book's author "rel[ies] ... on primary sources for their material, ... making analytic or evaluative claims about them". What I cited doesn't say that she tries to dominate public institutions or control the means of production. The relevant statements are not personal statements about her experience. She relies on sources, critiques what some of them present, and makes recommendations that are at least one step removed from being just her personal experience, in this case regarding how women should relate to society. That is reportable as advocacy. It belongs in the advocacy section and is quotable as Phyllis Chesler wrote it.

Dale Spender's statements were already attributed to Dale Spender's work: four times, prior to Sonicyouth86's edits of April 30th last.

What Dale Spender says on reproduction is subtly but critically different from what Sonicyouth86 says. Dale Spender in Sonicyouth86's quotation says "the only way women can protect themselves is if they dominate particular institutions and can use them to serve women's interests. Reproduction is a case in point." Reproduction is given as an example, not a limiting case, and Dale Spender does not claim that Phyllis Chesler meant her advocacy mainly for reproduction. Neither does Phyllis Chesler make that restrictive claim. Phyllis Chesler's advocacy is far more wide-ranging and is acknowledgeable as such. Phyllis Chesler wrote of women in domination of "public and social institutions" and the list item said so. Government is public and women's domination of "public and social institutions" is acknowledgeable advocacy.

That either author also wrote about other subjects and that Dale Spender found other subjects in Phyllis Chesler's work are interesting but nothing cited by Sonicyouth86 thus disputes the advocacy, and that's what the article section is about.

To know what Phyllis Chesler advocated precisely, one may read Phyllis Chesler's book, thus the convenience to readers of providing the citation in this article. I had cited her book before Sonicyouth86 removed the citation. It is not necessary that Dale Spender have quoted Phyllis Chesler at length before we can rely on both as sources; the one may paraphrase or summarize the other and analysts we rely on often do. Including both sources is well within Wikipedia's policies.

That any author changes their mind is permissible. In this case, Phyllis Chesler changed her mind about other matters. Dale Spender's book was from 1985 while Phyllis Chesler's was from 1972 and 2005, sandwiching Dale Spender's, and I relied on the later edition. What Phyllis Chesler changed her mind about were matters that did not bear on the advocacy and Sonicyouth86's only claim that they might is that she changed her mind about something Sonicyouth86 didn't specify. I read that passage in Dale Spender's book when I did the research and found nothing contradicting what I presented for the advocacy. From the library copy of Dale Spender's book, at p. 214, here's what Phyllis Chesler said about what are "not" "still ... [her] views": "For example, I have re-evaluated the dangers of test-tube babies in terms of a feminist future. I am probably more of a feminist-anarchist than ever before; more mistrustful of the organisation of power into large bureaucratic states than I once was." Then, ending the paragraph, she goes on to discuss another book. What she changed her mind about were different matters. While I will likely add her concern about large bureaucracy, what she cited as what she changed her mind about do not alter her advocacy under discussion here and asserted by her twenty years after her change of mind. She can change her mind about other matters without discrediting herself, Dale, or either book, without turning her advocacy into nonadvocacy, and without disqualifying her advocacy from Wikipedia.

What Phyllis Chesler wrote about Amazons and about psychology does not change her advocacy. To say that it does would require synthesis, so I didn't and don't. Whether Phyllis Chesler saw danger in "forgetting, romanticizing, misusing, and re-creating" (debolded) "Amazons, Great Mothers, witches" is not seeing danger in "forgetting, romanticising, misusing or re-creating" respecting dominating public institutions and her other advocacies in this article. To say that dominating public institutions and such is the same as Amazonianism is somewhat synthetic, and I didn't posit that; great motherhood is further removed from the advocacy under discussion here and witchcraft is even further removed yet. And warning of dangers is not the same as opposing one's own advocacy. Many of us favor cooking even though fire burns people up, favor recreational swimming although drowning kills, and favor democracy even when we lose at the ballot box. Warnings may even advance the advocacy, by improving the odds of success. I don't know why the warning against forgetting is in this Talk context, but if it's about incomplete history and repeating errors, that's a normal warning for most enterprises and it does not have to close the advocacy. One may deromanticize while still advocating (which is what one should do if romanticization is subject to a warning to be heeded) (romantic, adj., means, inter alia, 'without basis in fact' & 'impractical' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam, 1966))). An army can tell potential recruits that war is not fun, that recruits and buddies die, and that joining is not for finding a girlfriend; and the army can still desire to recruit and strive to win its wars. I recall that the Irish Republican Army gave a speech to recruits discouraging joining to find girlfriends. A state lottery chief may tell you that you can win but that you probably won't, and still advertise for sales. Misuse is fit for a warning for any enterprise; nothing should be misused, not even the very best of things (e.g., cancer-curing chemotherapy may be lethal when overdosed and the wrong colors may make bad art). Re-creating from the past or other places is problematic for many kinds of successful enterprises; people change and differ and so do circumstances. Thus, for us to read these warnings as dispositive against the advocacy would be synthesis, which is why I don't read them that way. We could add the warnings to the article as criticism, but, since, e.g., almost anything can be misused, these as criticisms are trivial and, since none of the advocacies come with specific step-by-step implementation instruction manuals, it's premature to publish criticisms of plans that haven't appeared and aren't cited. Note, as a tangent, that Phyllis Chesler in Women and Madness appears to support that mental illness exists (".... [a]s if mental illness isn't real" (id., p. 17 (2005 Introduction)) and "the genetic and chemical bases of mental illness" (id., p. 29 (2005 Introduction))) and that therapy is appropriate ("turning the mentally ill loose ... is not the solution .... [p]eople do have a right to treatment, if that treatment exists" (id., p. 29 (2005 Introduction))) despite her cautions, warnings, or negative descriptions of psychological hypotheses/theories and clinical practice gone awry being far more extensive than for the warnings, etc., she gives for the advocacy this article is about. She effectively warns against bad therapy and thus is not a believer in bad therapy, but remains a believer in good therapy where needed. We may assume she is not an advocate for bad governments by women but that differs from contending that all governments by women are bad. Warnings do not necessarily disprove the existence of the subject advocacy.

Further content vital to understanding the advocacy and that is properly referenced belongs in the article, but it was deleted and I propose to restore it (footnote numbers, linking, and formatting may vary at that time):

... that women fare better when controlling the means of production,^[71] and that equality with men, being "spurious",^[70] should not be supported,^[70][72] resulting in women being "superior",^[70] even if female domination is no more "'just'"^[72] than male domination.^[72]

70. ^{a b c} Spender, Dale, For the Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist Knowledge (London: The Women's Press, 1985 (ISBN 0-7043-2862-3)), p. 151 and see reply from Phyllis Chesler to author at p. 214.

71. Chesler, Phyllis, Women and Madness, op. cit., p. 337 and see p. 340.

72. ^{a b c} Chesler, Phyllis, Women and Madness, op. cit., p. 338.

Adding the title of Phyllis Chesler's book to the list item's main text is fine; it was already in the reference but giving it in the body as well is fine. However, to say that adding it makes the list item neutral is not true: the item was already neutral in treating her work. That Sonicyouth86 "mentioned that those claims only extend to the book" is superfluous: no contrary claim was made in the article. It is not generally necessary to state that any claim by an author in one of their works does not appear in any other work by that author. Authors of books typically write about one subject in one book and another subject in another book; article authors are usually even more stringently nonrepetitive. This case is no different.

Citations are clearer and more normal with parentheses and related formatting and, for consistency and since I don't know any reason not to use them, I'll keep them.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (accesses were performed between Apr. 30th last and today)

There were two sources, a piece by Carol Anne Douglas in off our backs and Dale Spender's book For the Record. The original work by Phyllis Chesler is a primary source and although the use of primary sources is sometimes permitted, the primary source in this case doesn't support the claim that Phyllis Chesler advocated matriarchy. WP:OR states:

”Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.”

Nick Levinson has argued that the Phyllis Chesler book is a secondary source for Chesler's theories (Nick Levinson refers to these theories as “advocacy”). How a book can be a secondary source for the authors own “advocacy” is unclear. Even if the Chesler book were a secondary source for Chesler's “advocacy,” the quotes provided by Nick Levinson don't directly and explicitly support the view that she advocates matriarchy. WP:RS explains:

”Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.”

Therefore, the Chesler book isn't an acceptable source and I had every right to delete it and suggest that Wikiquote is the the right platform for the collection of quotes.

If the Carol Anne Douglas piece says something that supports Nick Levinson's interpretation that Chesler advocates matriarchy or at least something similar, I'll be very glad to restore it. But, of course, both Nick Levinson and I know that it doesn't.

Nick Levinson's assertion that “the BLP claim has been refuted on this Talk page, in the Removal of the Claims About Valerie Solanas section” is pure fabrication. Nick Levinson has expressed his opinion that his interpretation of primary sources isn't original research and therefore doesn't go against WP:BLP. Nick Levinson's opinion is neither authoritative nor final and in direct contradiction to Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia cannot base its articles on the interpretative input of Wikipedia editors. Since Nick Levinson analyzed, synthesized, interpreted, and evaluated the Chesler's book himself this goes against WP:OR and automatically against WP:BLP.

If Chesler advocated matriarchy, please provide sources that state she did. I have been very generous in keeping the Spender source although it clearly doesn't support the “advocacy of matriarchy” charge. If you find such a source (please, bear in mind that sources like the “Palestine Solidarity Review” are unacceptable for BLP content), then Chesler's “advocac” will be noncontentious in the BLP sense.

In which later quotation is “theses” substituted for “thesis” and how does it change the fact that the edition of the Spender's book you cited (For the Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist Knowledge, London: The Women's Press, 1985, pp. 151, reply from Phyllis Chesler p. 214) says on page 153-154:

“There has been a feminist response – the development of a feminist psychology and feminist therapy – but there has been no essential change in the ethics of mental health, partly because it is so inextricably interwoven with the concept of male-as-norm, a concept which shows few signs of being dislodged. To accept Phyllis Chesler's thesis that a male-dominated society defines women as mad is to challenge the foundations of our society; ...“

The only other time Spender tries to define the purpose of the book is again on page 154, when she says:

”Women and Madness is too much: it is too bold, too bald, to bare. It strips patriarchy down to its essence and leaves little room for rationalisation. It pains a picture which is not at all pleasant: that is why I think many members of society prefer to look the other way.”

Those are the only two instances that Spender mentions something about the purpose or the thesis (singular as in the book) of the text. Spender never implies that Chesler may have had only one thesis (singular as in the book!) but she also never implies that her other theses might have included advocacy of matriarchy. In the course of the 4 and a half pages that Spender devotes to describing Chesler's book, she focuses primarily on describing Chesler's thesis that men take over public discourse and diminish women's experience in the process and consign women to the “not-to-be-taken-seriously.” Therefore, Spender's summary that Women and Madness strips patriarchy down to its essence and that Chesler's thesis is that a male-dominated society defines women as mad, is consistent with the rest of the descriptions. No, Spender doesn't say that Chesler advocates matriarchy.

Accurate quotation is indeed very important, more so in the article than its discussion page. I don't think that my omitting a comma here on the talk page is as reprehensible as your misquoting Spender. Spender does indeed say “dominate particular institutions” (not “dominate public and social institutions”). The sentence “dominate public and social institutions” was referenced with footnote 69, the Chesler book, and footnote 70, the Spender book prior revision.

As I wrote elsewhere, Women and Madness is obviously a primary source for Chesler's “advocacy.” WP:PSTS provides links to the articles about primary sources and secondary sources. The distinction between the two is very clear:

In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.

A primary source, on the other hand, describes “material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.” What could be closer to an author than her own opinions, theories, or advocacies? You could use Chesler’s book as a secondary source for the other research she discusses but it is clearly a primary source for her own advocacy. You are the one who needs to convince me and not the other way around because Wikipedia states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, you. Please ask ininvolved editors for insight and try to build concensus that the Chesler book is a secondary source about her own advocacy. Should there be a consensus that the source is secondary, you still need another consensus that says that the sources “directly and explicitly” support your interpretation that Chesler advocated matriarchy.

You seem to have a general problem distinguishing primary sources from secondary sources. The next item point after Phyllis Chesler discusses Monique Wittig's novel, novel as in fiction, and you seriously seem to think that it is a secondary source because you treat it like one.

Please try to understand WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which states that you need to attribute opinions in the body of the text not just in the references. Instead of “John Doe is the best baseball player” you are supposed to write “John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.” Before I attributed the opinion to Spender, the list item stated:

Phyllis Chesler wrote[67][68] that feminist women must "dominate public and social institutions",[69][70] that women fare better when controlling the means of production,[71] and that equality with men, being "spurious",[70] should not be supported,[70][72] resulting in women being "superior",[70] even if female domination is no more "'just'"[72] than male domination.

Then I changed it to:

According to Dale Spender, Phyllis Chesler wrote in her book Women and Madness that "the only way women can protect themselves is if they dominate particular institutions and can use them to serve women's interests. Reproduction is a case in point."[67] Chesler replied that while Spender's reading of Women and Madness was "excellent" and most of the views that Spender attributed to her were accurate, some were not.[67]

Sonicyouth does not say anything. It was Dale Spender who wrote "the only way women can protect themselves is if they dominate particular institutions and can use them to serve women's interests. Reproduction is a case in point" not Sonicyouth. I don't have the bad habit of prioritizing my interpretations and disregarding what the sources state. If Dale Spender didn't claim that Chesler meant her advocacy mainly for reproduction than she should have said so. But Spender says, “Reproduction is a case in point.” Stick to the sources, Nick Levinson.

Dale Spender never claimed that Phyllis Chesler advocated matriarchy and that is what the section is about.

Analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating material found in a primary source yourself is outside of Wikipedia policy according to WP:OR. When original research is used in a BLP context, a swift deletion is necessary.

You can take Chesler's claim that some of the views that Spender attributes to her are inaccurate seriously or you don't. The point is that Spender never claims that Chesler advocated matriarchy. The thesis (singular!) of Chesler's Women and Madness, was, according to Spender, that “a male-dominated society defines women as mad” (p. 154).

You did posit that dominating particular institutions, such as reproduction, was matriarchy. This is original research not supported by the sources. Chesler didn't just warn of “misusing” “Great Mothers,” she also warned of “re-creating” them which renderes your examples that only deal with the misuse of something moot. A warning against re-creating an alleged matriarchal past contradicts all claims that she “advocates matriarchy.”

Actually, the army would most likely promote joining as a sure way to make oneself attractive for the ladies, for all the significance that has to the Chesler book (none).

You can rewrite or I can rewrite the list item based on the Spender and Douglas source. Since Douglas doesn't even mention anything about supposed claims to superiority, she is out, unless you can find such a quote or explain why that source is important. Spender has to serve as the main source for the Chesler paragraph. If you think that something is missing from the list item after my rewrite, please look for it in the Spender or Douglas or another reliable source, and then add it to the article. I will do the same. I have access to a very large university library so that I can order any book and pick it up a few hours later. I also have access to most peer-reviewed journals. So if you should ever need it, I can scan parts of a book or download an article, and send it to you per mail. Maybe that will make research into the subject a bit easier. Just a suggestion.

I oppose restoring the quotes from the Chesler book because interpretation of primary sources as well as using secondary sources to advance an opinion not directly and explicitly stated in the source, is original research. Since Chesler is still alive we need to be even more careful than usual to avoid original research. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What I used from PSR is not contentious in the sense that BLP forbids it and thus does not violate BLP. Merely being strongly disagreeable about Andrea Dworkin, even if she were alive, would not be the sort of contentiousness that would violate BLP.

"[T]heses" is substituted for "thesis" in the opening post of this topic/section, (later in the post than the longest quotation), in the paragraph beginning "Spender says that Chesler", in the sentence beginning "Instead".

You wrote, "[t]he sentence 'dominate public and social institutions' was referenced with footnote 69, the Chesler book, and footnote 70, the Spender book prior revision" (delinked here). The text that includes the quotation, but not just the quotation, was referenced with the two footnotes because the two footnotes supported the sentence, so that was proper. Dale Spender was allowed to summarize and paraphrase Phyllis Chesler's book and any part of it. The first of the two footnotes explicitly said it was for the quotation. Since the other one did not say it was for the quotation, I'll consider clarifying the distinction in the second footnote.

Les Guérillères is treated as primary and, when used with care, primary sources may be used. The list item includes secondary sources about it.

Reproduction being a case in point is not reproduction being the whole of "'women's interests'".

The balance has already been answered or can be from what's already present.

In my post above, the extra brackets surrounding "69" were my error. I saw it too late to correct last night and you've already replied, so I won't change it now.

I will keep your offer of scannable/downloadable material in mind. Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I know what you mean. That was a typo. I included the full, correct quote in my last post:

“There has been a feminist response – the development of a feminist psychology and feminist therapy – but there has been no essential change in the ethics of mental health, partly because it is so inextricably interwoven with the concept of male-as-norm, a concept which shows few signs of being dislodged. To accept Phyllis Chesler's thesis that a male-dominated society defines women as mad is to challenge the foundations of our society; ...“

So yes, according to Spender Chesler has only one thesis (which seems unlikely but who am I to argue?).

I think it's a good decision to clarify footnote 70.

Reproduction was the only example of "women's interests" that Spender mentioned, and therefore, I don't feel comfortable mentioning anything beyond that. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Phyllis Chesler's thesis that a male-dominated society defines women as mad" grammatically can mean either that there's only one thesis or that of more than one thesis the one identified (viz., "Phyllis Chesler's thesis that a male-dominated society defines women as mad") is being discussed. I would argue that Phyllis Chesler's book has primarily one major thesis and several subtheses, but that distinction may not be very important here. What is key is that Dale Spender did not exclude there being more than one thesis or any number of subtheses. And Women and Madness is a secondary source for Phyllis Chesler's theorizing and advocacy, so we don't need a secondary source to repeat all of its relevant content before use. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

proposal to rewrite on Phyllis Chesler

I propose to rewrite the Phyllis Chesler list item, drawing on the content as it stood prior to April 30 and incorporating subsequent edits.

Women and Madness, For the Record, and the off our backs review are all secondary sources. Women and Madness, by Phyllis Chesler, analyzes and extends from the sources it cites and is not, insofar as used here, a statement of Phyllis Chesler's personal experience. While For the Record and the review add to what we know of Women and Madness, there is no requirement that Wikipedia limit its reporting to what other sourcing says Women and Madness says. Wikipedia may report what Women and Madness says directly from the book, including by paraphrasing it.

The statement that Phyllis Chesler considered Dale Spender's reading excellent is not important enough for the main text and a reference already gives the page number for it. The statement that Dale Spender's restatement of Phyllis Chesler's views was partly "not" accurate is easily misunderstood as blameworthy unless contextualized (Phyllis Chesler had changed her mind, so Dale Spender wasn't wrong in her reading) and, instead, those issues resulting from changing her mind, insofar as they're implicit criticisms of her own advocacy, should be stated.

What would appear is now a draft on a new subpage. Comments are welcome.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the subpage for the latest proposed edits. I plan to post per the subpage very soon. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with us using Spender on Chesler. Chesler herself should be quoted or summarised, and with sufficient context to allow nuances to be seen. In particular, whether she advocated women's domination of all social/public institutions, as opposed to some, and whether that was to be a temporary or a permanent state. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

If Dale had not written her book, Phyllis' book would be citable anyway; but Dale's book does provide support and there is demand within Wikipedia for such a citation, so it makes sense to keep it. Reorganizing the passage, however, might clarify it a and I'll look into that. Probably Phyllis' direct stuff should come first and everything from Dale should come after that, so I'll look.

In Phyllis' book, there isn't much context directly on point, in either edition, beyond what I already provided. Perhaps Phyllis wrote an article related to this outside of the book, but, if so, I don't know about it, and I looked; she's apparently been a prolific writer on many topics.

If we analyzed Phyllis' book for deeper meaning on point, it'd likely be synthesis or original research, so I don't think there's more to add from her book into this article. Example: "Why has so startling, so simple, so dangerous, so elite an idea as female humanity, or equality, or supremacy, or sexuality, surfaced as a potentially mass movement?" (id. (1972 ed.), p. 239) (emphasis in original) (see also id. (2005 ed.), p. 294). From this we could say that she considered "female ... supremacy ... a potentially mass movement" that is "startling, ... simple, ... dangerous, ... [and] elite [as] an idea" (ibid. (1972 ed.)). But a contra argument is that she was only asking and therefore that the declarative would be synthetic. She also wrote extensively about Amazons but that is not necessarily future advocacy or assertive of past female governance of men, so it doesn't quite fit this article.

The citations already in the subpage's draft list some additional pages that Wikipedia readers could consider for advanced reading.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The draft is now updated per the above. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like synthesis to me. I don't see here any notable advocacy of matriarchy, but cherry-picking of statements that are not important parts of Chesler's theses. Domination of social institutions - how many institutions, for how long? Matriarchy as defined in our article and by its unequivocal advocates, is domination by women of all of social life. In one reading, Chesler is just arguing that women will, if there are no counterbalancing forces, dominate reproduction. Many people might agree without even being feminists. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Her book covers much more than this, but it's not required that an author not write about anything else in a book, and she revised and reissued her book to the same effect 23 years later, both editions being cited here. She made her statements without contradicting them, so there's no cherry-picking from her work. She does not base her argument on a lack of counterbalancing forces; I think most advocates in this field don't, because that would be only a very easy case, hardly worth imagining or pursuing. Her book makes clear that forces against women's power are very present. Women dominating public institutions, controlling the means of production, and being superior are together matriarchal within the article's scope, so there's no synthesis. The article's lede defines matriarchy as women having the central political and moral authority, not necessarily the only authority, which could be appropriate for a separatist society, but probably not occur in a matriarchy, even an advocated-for hypothesized one. Within the definition, a society would be matriarchal even if men still had some power, just as women typically have some power in most modern societies that are nonetheless patriarchal, because an invidiously discriminated-against minority usually has some power, albeit not enough, even for equality. Also within the definition, a matriarchy may be temporary or permanent; affirmative action often was advocated for as a temporary solution but still a real one, and Phyllis Chesler has left the duration open. Dale Spender says reproduction is "a case in point", not the exclusive case. Even though Dale Spender focuses on only part of Phyllis Chesler's statements, the latter remain valid as a contribution to feminist discourse on point. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Still doesn't work for me. It seems a bit like arguing that Prince Charles is an advocate of socialism because he has criticised aspects of modern capitalist society. In the same way that advocates of socialism say "hey everyone, what we need is socialism", I expect real advocates of matriarchy to say "hey girls, what we need is matriarchy". We don't have a quote for Chesler saying that, instead we have a couple of lines in a book that is actually about - what it says it is about, women and madness. Chesler is probably better known now for writing on antisemitism; she can't really combine that with advocacy of matriarchy. Anyway, I'm not an expert, and this could do with more eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I read Women and Madness as well as the 5 page description by Spender and agree with Itsmejudith. As Spender argues, the main thesis of the book is how men dominate discourse and diminish women's experiences and "define women as mad." I agree that the quotes used are cherry-picked and don't say anything about advocating matriarchy. Another thing is that Women and Madness is obviously a secondary source when Chesler discusses the work of other authors, but it's clearly a primary source for her very own "advocacy." I don't have a problem with using the primary source, i.e., the Women and Madness text itself, but there are no quotes along the lines of "hey girls, what we need is matriarchy." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of something is not necessarily inherently advocacy for something else, as with Prince Charles. If Charles merely criticized aspects of modern capitalism, he could still mean that capitalism will solve the problems itself automatically or that reform preserving fundamental capitalism would be a good and sufficient idea. Phyllis Chesler went beyond the parallel positioning on patriarchy because she called for steps that do not rely on patriarchy self-correcting or on reform that preserves patriarchy, but called for women's domination of institutions, argued that women fare better by controlling the means of production and not just of reproduction, and called for women's nonsupport of equality with men, and any of those is nonpreservative of patriarchy. These go beyond what she wrote about, for example, Amazonianism, which she describes, but doesn't say we should reestablish. It is as to domination, control, and nonequality that she was explicit in her advocacy, and they're within matriarchy, so it's well beyond the Charles case.

Mental health among women is the major subject of her book, but her calls above are not in conflict with mental health. Her book has a major topic and some subthemes, as many books do, and subthematic material in sources is citable throughout Wikipedia as long as its not trivial, and this isn't.

Antisemitism is not necessarily inconsistent with matriarchy, as far as I know. I did read a book of hers on antisemitism and didn't see a rejection of what she had earlier written on her above points. Some might argue that Judaism is inherently patriarchal to such an extent that being pro-Jewish requires abandoning equality and favoring men's supremacy, but I don't know that she claimed that. There definitely is a line of feminism within Judaism and I think it is not all propatriarchal, so what she wrote in Woman and Madness on domination, control, and nonequality in favor of women is not necessarily inconsistent with Judaism.

If by cherry-picking is meant biased selectivity against what the author wrote, that didn't happen in my submissions. (Cherry-picking also means picking for relevance, which is exactly what we should do.) If anything even looks like cherry-picking against an author's writing, all that's needed is for anyone to find any statement by the author in the book or later that contradicts the content, such as, "I didn't mean that." I found nothing of the sort. Apparently, no one else has, either. The charge, which is very serious, is incorrect. If anyone finds such a passage later, we can rectify the text at that time.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

structure and organization

This article, which is bound to attract tendentious editing, ought to be immaculately structured if nothing else. And yet in the intro we had a truly massive paragraph in direct quotation about the Iroquois, longer than the section on their matriarchal society. I moved the quote there. I'm also queasy about ending the intro with a "call to action" quote. This has a place in the article in looking at criticism of matriarchal perspectives, but here it seems non-neutral.

At the top, I switched the order of the redirect templates. Knowing Wikipedians as I do by now, placing the one about the pornographic novel above the more natural "Matriarch" redirect seemed like a deliberate "up yours". There is also no need to specify that the novel is "pornographic" unless there's another novel by that title that needs to be disambiguated—but as the article title indicates, that is not the case. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems with the edits. Thanks.

You're right about what the article will tend to attract, but I try to be collaborative even where I wouldn't edit the same way myself, especially in controversial articles, and focus on what's most important about an article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Igbo people

Are the Igbo people people of Africa matriarchal or were they? 97.85.168.22 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't know specifically about them, but make sure not to confuse matriliny with matriarchy.... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)