Welcome!

Hello, Justine4all, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Sexism. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Even if it is accurate, it should be addressed in the pertinent article, as it violates NPoV when used here. Ioeth 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. I am not sure to what you are referring. If I have been non-neutral, I have not done so on purpose.--Justine4all 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Justine4all 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)== Sexism page ==[reply]

You have mentioned on my talk page that you believe I am not being neutral. Please be specific because I am unsure to what you are referring. If I have been non-neutral, I did not do so on purpose. --Justine4all 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I also program in Java. Please to make your acquaintance.--Justine4all 18:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not all we have in common....I'm actually from Ohio too! Columbus, though, but I live in Raleigh, North Carolina now. As far as the Sexism article goes, I thought that it might not be appropriate to draw Christina Hoff Sommers' political and ideological beliefs into the discussion here, especially given their contested nature (i.e., Sommers describes herself as a feminist while some critics describe her as anti-feminist). The best place for this type of information to reside would be the article about her. Furthermore, making the assertion that she's a libertarian is at best lack of citing sources, since it doesn't say anything about that in her article. Even so, illustrating her political beliefs here does little or nothing to enhance the value of the article "Sexism". Do you agree? You seem very knowledgeable about the subject in general and I've seen that nearly all of your edits are grat, but I hate to see generalized classifications of little value get put into articles. Let me know what you think!! --Ioeth 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of minor tweaks (removed some commas and provided a link to the section of Sommers' article where it's contested she's antifeminist), but will refrain from changing any of the core content you add to this article. I still think that the libertarian thing needs a reference, though! ;-) --Ioeth 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Ioeth. (I have also lived in Columbus! - I attended a small liberal arts college there.) I do think it is reasonable, and even responsible of us, to point out Sommers' biases and point of view. She is not in the academic main stream. Here is what I know about Sommers' point of view:

• She is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute which is characterized as "is an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism[1], and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives." It is widely thought of as "libertarian." She also writes for partisan, conservative magazines like the National Review.
• Summers' books have been heavily criticized by her academic peers, and she has resisted submitting her publications to peer review journals. Here are just a couple examples of responses:

http://www.american.edu/sadker/waragainstboys.htm
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/hoffsommers2.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_text/v021/21.4spindel.html

--Justine4all 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is are articles about Sommers' libertarian views:

• http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/christina-hoff-sommers.html
• http://chronicle.com/weekly/v45/i05/05a01201.htm
• http://www.wendymcelroy.com/l4w/index.html

Justine4all 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)--Justine4all 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justine, I see you are active on this page at the moment. Can I ask you to slow down a bit with your edits, since you are making some mistakes. Blogs and other self-published sources are appropriate for articles about themselves, and since this is about the Fathers' Rights movement then the websites of prominent members of the movement are appropriate references for their claims and objectives. You have also deleted a reference and a sentence that I know for a fact is appropriately referenced. "Membership in father's rights groups has tended to be short-term as many members don't stay in contact with the group after they have been helped", which can be found in Kaye, Miranda; Julia Tolmie (1998). "Fathers' Rights Groups in Australia and their Engagement with Issues in Family Law". Australian Journal of Family Law 12: pp 19-68. I think it would be a good idea to discuss your edits and suggested edits on the talkpage. I don't disagree with some of your edits and questions, but it would be good to build consensus first. --Slp1 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1, I will certainly slow down. I do question, however, why the authors/editors of this article are using blogs to reference more than just sections and sentences about themselves. They seem to be using blogs and self-published sources to appear to reference scholarly/academic statements. I will go back and look at what I deleted, but I don't think I purposefully deleted anything that referenced how long people tend to stay in father's rights groups.--Justine4all 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you slowing down! I agree that there is editing to do with this article again: it went through massive changes in the spring, but some odd things have crept in since then, I agree. About websites, you should see WP:SELFPUB which explains the issue of self-published websites etc. See you on the talkpage, though I am quite busy tonight and won't be able to give the article my full attention. But like I said, I think slow but sure is a good policy around here. Make some proposals on the talkpage and then give people a few days to respond to them. Discussion and consensus is important, and in the longterm works much better, I think. Take a look through the archives of this page, for example and you will see what I mean! --Slp1 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia's policies. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.