Talk:Feminism: Difference between revisions
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
There is a distinct difference with this definition in Merriam-Webster, in that "equality of the sexes" does not have a particular focus. It means that both men and women should be allowed the same rights compared to each other, which is distinct from a definition in which (soley) women should be allowed the same rights compared to men (compare it with 1-way or 2-way synchronization). The definition by Merriam Webster is indeed seen in public. Just one example, from the top of my head is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9SUAcNlVQ4&t=30s Emma Watson's speech before the United Nations]. Since it is not up to Wikipedia to choose which definition it should be, both definitions should be mentioned. I insert my (reverted) edit again. If someone needs me to further elaborate, I am happy to provide. (cc [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]) Kind regards, [[User:Timelezz|Timelezz]] ([[User talk:Timelezz|talk]]) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
There is a distinct difference with this definition in Merriam-Webster, in that "equality of the sexes" does not have a particular focus. It means that both men and women should be allowed the same rights compared to each other, which is distinct from a definition in which (soley) women should be allowed the same rights compared to men (compare it with 1-way or 2-way synchronization). The definition by Merriam Webster is indeed seen in public. Just one example, from the top of my head is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9SUAcNlVQ4&t=30s Emma Watson's speech before the United Nations]. Since it is not up to Wikipedia to choose which definition it should be, both definitions should be mentioned. I insert my (reverted) edit again. If someone needs me to further elaborate, I am happy to provide. (cc [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]) Kind regards, [[User:Timelezz|Timelezz]] ([[User talk:Timelezz|talk]]) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:And I'm afraid I reverted. The text as added confuses rather than clarifies the lede. It needs work and IMHO probably shouldn't go in to the lede at all. Might be better for another section or the [[feminism and equality]] article--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#808080">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#808080">''talk''</font>]]</sup> 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
:And I'm afraid I reverted. The text as added confuses rather than clarifies the lede. It needs work and IMHO probably shouldn't go in to the lede at all. Might be better for another section or the [[feminism and equality]] article--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#808080">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#808080">''talk''</font>]]</sup> 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Why? It is one of the used definitions. Why are we being selective and judge that Cambridge's definition is the one to go with it, while the |
::Why? It is one of the used definitions. Why are we being selective and judge that Cambridge's definition is the one to go with it, while the Merriam-Webster's definition is incorrect? Kind regards, [[User:Timelezz|Timelezz]] ([[User talk:Timelezz|talk]]) 23:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::Because your wording/interpretation is confusing and poorly written for the [[lede]]. As Tony said to you there is no substantive difference between "equal rights for women" and "equality of the sexes". Furthermore ledes don't need to be referenced - they need to summarize and reflect article content (the only reason teh lede is referenced here is to stop POV-pushing). More than that lede lines are not dictionary definitions ''per se'' and trying to write etymologies, dictionary definitions ect into encyclopedia articles actually is the opposite what wikipedia is for see: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#The_dictionary_definition_trap]]. And finally the fact that the current wording can be sourced to multiple books about feminism (for example, and only naming 2 but there are more, ''Beasley's What is Feminism?'' and Hawkesworth's ''Globalization and Feminist Activism'') means that the current wording isn't the problem. Also at this point you've been reverted thrice by 3 other people. Please achieve consensus first - [[WP:BRD]] has been exhausted--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#808080">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#808080">''talk''</font>]]</sup> 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
:::Because your wording/interpretation is confusing and poorly written for the [[lede]]. As Tony said to you there is no substantive difference between "equal rights for women" and "equality of the sexes". Furthermore ledes don't need to be referenced - they need to summarize and reflect article content (the only reason teh lede is referenced here is to stop POV-pushing). More than that lede lines are not dictionary definitions ''per se'' and trying to write etymologies, dictionary definitions ect into encyclopedia articles actually is the opposite what wikipedia is for see: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#The_dictionary_definition_trap]]. And finally the fact that the current wording can be sourced to multiple books about feminism (for example, and only naming 2 but there are more, ''Beasley's What is Feminism?'' and Hawkesworth's ''Globalization and Feminist Activism'') means that the current wording isn't the problem. Also at this point you've been reverted thrice by 3 other people. Please achieve consensus first - [[WP:BRD]] has been exhausted--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#808080">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#808080">''talk''</font>]]</sup> 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::When you write "no substantive difference", I think you assume that "equal rights for women" also means that when women have certain rights that men do not have, that the goal is to curb down women's rights to mirror the rights that men have. Well, that is what I perceive as the difference. I mean, improving men's rights, It would not call an act for "equal rights for women". If I am wrong to see this difference, I would love to hear why that is the case. For the moment, I am not entirely convinced those are the same things. And if it is the same thing, I would be good to have that reflected in the article, in some way. I don't think that Wikipedia should serve a societal role, but outside Wikipedia I have seen discussions about the extent of feminism, and whether it also includes men's rights. For example, the men's right movement called out the women's right movement for their lack of interest in men's rights. If women's rights movement is not necessarily about improving men's rights, then their critic is off. But if it is about equality of the sexes, their criticism is spot on. I've seen furious debates about this. Partly due to lack of a clear definition (or lack of clarity about possible definition). I don't mean that Wikipedia has to serve that role as a mediator, but when I read the Wikipedia article it seems that feminism is concerned with women's rights (mirroring men's rights where they are lacking behind) and is not necessarily about equality of the sexes. In short, I think there should be (in the lead) something about the extent to which feminism relates to gender equality. [[User:Timelezz|Timelezz]] ([[User talk:Timelezz|talk]]) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:18, 12 March 2015
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Feminism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Feminism at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Feminism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article lacks an infobox. You may wish to add one, so that the article resembles the standard display for this subject. This talk page may contain the banner of a relevant project, that provides the standardized infobox for this type of article. See also Category:Infobox templates, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. |
References
Priority 1 (top)
|
![]() | By consensus, guideline, or policy Criticism about feminism is already covered with appropriate weight and sourcing. If you seek coverage beyond what you see, consider whether you are proposing content that is more suitable for other articles or for a non-Wikimedia website. If a criticism you wish to add lacks an adequate source, please find one first. Edits for other pages may be offered there, not here. Examples include content for specialized articles and Wikipedia policies, which have their own pages and their own talk pages. This is only an introductory article on feminism. To find specialized subarticles within feminism, please click on links in the feminism article, including in any sidebar. Feminism is inherently one-sided. Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Wikipedia requires neutrality, but that applies to Wikipedia articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled. This article does not cover what feminism does not cover. If there are few feminist disagreements in a given society, feminism may have nothing to say about many subjects in that society. Wikipedia reports on feminism in accordance with reliable sources. Consistency with a particular political message is not this article's purpose. This article represents many sources with appropriate balance. While mainstream feminism is emphasized, other branches of feminism are also covered. The content of this article meets Wikipedia's Good Article Criteria. Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for "Good Articles". Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them. |
![]() | Points of interest related to Feminism on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
Template:ArtAndFeminism2015 article
Why is there no criticism question? revisited
The answer: because there is nothing to criticize about feminism, apparently.
There are plenty of arguments against feminism in 2014, though I'd assume they would be labeled hate speech and inadmissible as valid criticism, because that's how totalitarian thought regimes work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- The reason is because, per WP:CRITICISM, criticism sections are discouraged for all articles; instead of dividing everything into two or more squabbling viewpoints, articles are supposed to provide a single neutral perspective which touches on the various noteworthy opinions and strains of thought about the subject in their appropriate place. For instance, criticisms of individual threads of feminism are noted in several of the 'movements and ideologies' subsections; criticisms over different takes on sexuality are in the Feminism and sexuality section; criticisms of Feminist epistemology as it relates to science are noted in the Feminism and science section, and of course broad anti-feminism is mentioned at the bottom among responses. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, for an entire article on criticism of feminism, see the article Antifeminism. Per above, this article should not contain a criticism section per WP:CRITICISM. BenLinus1214talk 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a Criticsm of Democracy page... Criticism of Socialism.. Criticism of Capitalism.. all *kinds* of Criticism pages and subsections. That *ANTIFEMINISM* is considered Criticism of Feminism is ridiculous in the extreme, especially since the Antifeminism page is almost exclusively populated with quotes by FEMINISTS. It's like saying Judaism is the Criticism of Naziism, and then populating the Jewish article with endless quotes from Nazis. It's nonsensical in the extreme. Criticism of Capitalism, for example, doesn't link to Communism.... Criticism for Liberalism doesn't link to Conservativism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.180.106 (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you think Wikipedia needs a new article on a certain topic that isn't covered elsewhere in the encyclopaedia or need more in-depth coverage, create it. --TS 01:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think I've tried? They just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.180.106 (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe I have misunderstood what you're saying, maybe I'm misunderstanding the page logs, but I find no record of the page Criticism of feminism being deleted. --TS 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- This whole thing is toeing the line of WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly at this point it appears to have veered off topic. --TS 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- This whole thing is toeing the line of WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Opening should be altered to match Men's Rights Movement restrictions
From the Men's Rights Movement article: "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are commonly concerned about what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage and discrimination."
Per discussions here and here. It seems to me the Feminism and Men's Right Movements should be held to the same standards. If Wikipedia insists on having "what they CONSIDER to be" on that article, it should be present here as well.
Places it could be inserted:
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve what they consider to be equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.
This includes seeking to establish what they consider to be equal opportunities for women in education and employment.
A feminist generally self-defines as advocating for or supporting what they consider to be the rights and equality of women.
Feminist advocacy is mainly focused on what they consider to be women's rights, but author bell hooks, among others, argue for the necessity for it to include men's liberation, because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles."
Per the linked discussion :Articles are not supposed to endorse views, whether those of feminists, LGBT rights groups, anti-racism groups, pro-racism groups, etc., and there is no reason to make an exception here. If the Men's Rights Movement article is written in a way that does not endorse anything about the Men's Rights Movement, so should the Feminism article not endorse these viewpoints listed above. BrentNewland (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources don't treat them the same, so the article don't either. RS by and large to not question the veracity of the feminist claim of gender inequality. That's not true for MRM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The *only* criteria here for assessing how this article opens are a) verifiability: how the subject is treated by reliable sources b) Neutral point of view: the recording without intervention of how the mainstream scholarly material treats the subject, giving time, space and weight in accordance with the reliability of those sources and c) Recording what the article contains.
The issues with other articles belong on their talk page. What this page deals with is what happens on Feminism not at Men's rights movement.
It is absolutely not the job of wikipedia to neuter sources. It is not our job to alter what they say to fit subjective misconceptions of "objectivity". Doing so constitutes original research at best and at worst misrepresentation of sources - something that has been attempted here on a number of occasions. You should also be aware that the Men's rights movement topic area is under probation and behaviour on this site in relation to tha topic area is monitored by sysops - there is some good advice here on what is unacceptable behaviour and how to avoid it.
As it stands this thread is wildly off-topic and will be closed if it continues to veer into the use of this site as a forum--Cailil talk 19:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Removal of "By Whom", "Which", and "Citation Needed" tags
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=646534042&diff=prev
I believe all of these "By Whom" and "Citation needed" tags I added (a total of four) are completely justified. The lede makes claims that are not cited, despite copious amounts of citations in the lede.
"Feminist campaigns are generally considered [by whom?] to be main force behind major historical societal changes [which?], particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited [by whom?]"
First: "Generally considered" is, as I understand it, a phrase frowned upon by Wikipedia. It's quite literally a generalization, which has no place here. I believe this tag is valid, because that particular bit needs reworded. It should include some specific names of notable people or organizations who hold this view.
Changing the "are generally considered to be" to something like "have been attributed to be" with a few citations linking to articles that support that claim would be far better.
Second: "Main force behind major historical societal changes" is a MASSIVE claim - and completely nonspecific. WHAT, specifically, are the major historical changes made by the feminism movement? As far as I know, this line is claiming that Feminism is the main force behind EVERY major historical societal change. What is the level considered "major"? Who has decided what is and is not "major"" historical societal changes? Who is claiming they are the "main force"? Also, that line is missing a "the". THE main force, not "to be main force".
Changing "main force behind major historical societal changes" to something like "a driving force behind several historically significant societal changes" solves a lot of issues, but it still needs to specify which ones.
Third: "where they are NEAR-UNIVERSALLY credited" - Honestly, I can't see any justification for this wording. Just like "generally considered", there is absolutely nothing to back up or clarify this statement, and it's a generalization.
"Feminists have also advocated for workplace rights, including receiving the right to paid work, paid maternity leave, and eradicating all forms of discrimination against women.[citation needed]"
Each one of these claims could easily have a citation. I'm sure there are plenty of sources. BrentNewland (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree the lead could use some improvement to address those whom issues you raise, I just want to note that the lead does not need sources. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should reflect the article itself and the references for statements in the lead should be easily found in the article body. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with EvergreenFir. The lead currently has too many citations, not too few. The lead is supposed to just be a summary of the body and not need it's own citations. 2601:9:4301:EFA0:4580:AA58:C842:C2A2 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- All the citation needed tags BrentNewland added were completely erroneous[1]. The sentences were already sourced. BrentNewland is on the verge of breaking WP:EDITWAR and WP:POINT - given the thread above this is veering into actionable territory under WP:ARBGG and/or WP:MRMPS--Cailil talk 11:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is amazing
WP:NOTFORUM; Godwin's Law |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women." The equal part links to feminism and equality on wikipedia. So the definition of equality in feminism is the definition of equality in feminism. How amazingly circular and wrong-headed. If this were a page about Nazism and the page linked to "Nazism and equality" in order to show Nazism was about equality among people of one country, would that make equality the definition of Nazism too?--Superdupersmartdude (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your threats really don't scare me, gender-fascists. The Arbcom never check out their pages or go to email, so you can't alert them even if my behaviour were in breach of wikipedia standards. Which it isn't because linking to one online encyclopedia page from another to show feminism allows the genders to be equally treated is just a breach of wikipedia guidelines on citing a reliable source, and is so blatantly an attempt to give feminism a positive ligh in light of the numerous attacks it has made on fathers and boys in people pushing the ideology. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and against wikipedia rules. Maybe I should report all of you to Arbcom as part of the feminazi wikistorm which happened here a while ago, along with your feminist wikiproject, since I have nothing to hide. Count yourselves lucky I don't feel like doing that right now.Superdupersmartdude (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
Definition of Feminism, not necessarily including men's rights.
Feminism started as a movement to strive for equal rights for women compared to men's rights. It did not (yet) concern the areas where men had less rights than women. In the last decade, or so, the focus on (solely) women widened up to include also men's rights, and started to equate with what we know as "gender equality". Dictionaries largely say its definition is still something in the line of "a belief that women should be allowed the same rights/power/opportunities as men", not necessarily both ways. Meaning, it does not necessarily include a belief that men should be allowed equal rights to women (which is important in cases where men have less rights than women). But some dictionaries, Merriam-Webster e.g., define feminism as following which is not yet reflected in the article:
" | the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.[2] | ” |
There is a distinct difference with this definition in Merriam-Webster, in that "equality of the sexes" does not have a particular focus. It means that both men and women should be allowed the same rights compared to each other, which is distinct from a definition in which (soley) women should be allowed the same rights compared to men (compare it with 1-way or 2-way synchronization). The definition by Merriam Webster is indeed seen in public. Just one example, from the top of my head is Emma Watson's speech before the United Nations. Since it is not up to Wikipedia to choose which definition it should be, both definitions should be mentioned. I insert my (reverted) edit again. If someone needs me to further elaborate, I am happy to provide. (cc Tony Sidaway) Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- And I'm afraid I reverted. The text as added confuses rather than clarifies the lede. It needs work and IMHO probably shouldn't go in to the lede at all. Might be better for another section or the feminism and equality article--Cailil talk 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why? It is one of the used definitions. Why are we being selective and judge that Cambridge's definition is the one to go with it, while the Merriam-Webster's definition is incorrect? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Because your wording/interpretation is confusing and poorly written for the lede. As Tony said to you there is no substantive difference between "equal rights for women" and "equality of the sexes". Furthermore ledes don't need to be referenced - they need to summarize and reflect article content (the only reason teh lede is referenced here is to stop POV-pushing). More than that lede lines are not dictionary definitions per se and trying to write etymologies, dictionary definitions ect into encyclopedia articles actually is the opposite what wikipedia is for see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#The_dictionary_definition_trap. And finally the fact that the current wording can be sourced to multiple books about feminism (for example, and only naming 2 but there are more, Beasley's What is Feminism? and Hawkesworth's Globalization and Feminist Activism) means that the current wording isn't the problem. Also at this point you've been reverted thrice by 3 other people. Please achieve consensus first - WP:BRD has been exhausted--Cailil talk 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- When you write "no substantive difference", I think you assume that "equal rights for women" also means that when women have certain rights that men do not have, that the goal is to curb down women's rights to mirror the rights that men have. Well, that is what I perceive as the difference. I mean, improving men's rights, It would not call an act for "equal rights for women". If I am wrong to see this difference, I would love to hear why that is the case. For the moment, I am not entirely convinced those are the same things. And if it is the same thing, I would be good to have that reflected in the article, in some way. I don't think that Wikipedia should serve a societal role, but outside Wikipedia I have seen discussions about the extent of feminism, and whether it also includes men's rights. For example, the men's right movement called out the women's right movement for their lack of interest in men's rights. If women's rights movement is not necessarily about improving men's rights, then their critic is off. But if it is about equality of the sexes, their criticism is spot on. I've seen furious debates about this. Partly due to lack of a clear definition (or lack of clarity about possible definition). I don't mean that Wikipedia has to serve that role as a mediator, but when I read the Wikipedia article it seems that feminism is concerned with women's rights (mirroring men's rights where they are lacking behind) and is not necessarily about equality of the sexes. In short, I think there should be (in the lead) something about the extent to which feminism relates to gender equality. Timelezz (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Because your wording/interpretation is confusing and poorly written for the lede. As Tony said to you there is no substantive difference between "equal rights for women" and "equality of the sexes". Furthermore ledes don't need to be referenced - they need to summarize and reflect article content (the only reason teh lede is referenced here is to stop POV-pushing). More than that lede lines are not dictionary definitions per se and trying to write etymologies, dictionary definitions ect into encyclopedia articles actually is the opposite what wikipedia is for see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#The_dictionary_definition_trap. And finally the fact that the current wording can be sourced to multiple books about feminism (for example, and only naming 2 but there are more, Beasley's What is Feminism? and Hawkesworth's Globalization and Feminist Activism) means that the current wording isn't the problem. Also at this point you've been reverted thrice by 3 other people. Please achieve consensus first - WP:BRD has been exhausted--Cailil talk 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why? It is one of the used definitions. Why are we being selective and judge that Cambridge's definition is the one to go with it, while the Merriam-Webster's definition is incorrect? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class Gender studies articles
- High-importance Gender studies articles
- Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- GA-Class Feminism articles
- Top-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- GA-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- GA-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- GA-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- GA-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- GA-Class Men's Issues articles
- High-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists