This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Neljack, everything in the lead is a summary of other material in the article. The material is definitely not a BLP violation. The statement, "but many of her arguments have been rejected or criticized by scholars" is objectively true and perfectly easy to support. If you believe that the sourcing should be made clearer, that can definitely be done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to update this article. And have been going around in circles. I added info in draft form, got an error message, tried to fix that. Added new material and saved it.
SuzeBrown (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)SuzeBrownReply
My sources are impeccable. I offered a long cite to the material on the summary ad reception of Against Our Will in 1975 but it seems to have been rejected. SuzeBrown (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)SuzeBrownReply
Thank you. Your edits were helpful, for the most part, although I have modified some of them. The exact number of pages an author spends discussing a subject is not a detail relevant to an encyclopedia article. Someone added a COI template to the lead of the article; I removed that, as apparently no evidence was provided to support it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please do not make accusations of COI without good evidence, Dammitkevin. There is nothing wrong with adding information about positive reviews of the book, as a neutrally written article should reflect both positive and negative views of its topic, per WP:NPOV. It isn't appropriate to make assumptions about what someone's user name might or might not mean. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
