Talk:Intersectionality/Archive 1

Including the term theophobia in this list was a gross misuse of the term. Theophobia refers to a pathological anxiety disorder where believers in Divine Punishment obsessively attribute perceived negative events to minor or imperceptible sins.^[1] Religious people are generally not the targets of discrimination in most societies today, but "Religious discrimination" as been used as a pretext for homophobic and transphobic legislation. ^[2] Atheists, however, are the targets of discrimination, imprisonment, assassination, and execution.^[3]

Epikouros~enwiki (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add 'ethnicity', is this a problem? Race/Nationality are different and don't include everyone. Thanks!Paolorausch (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

28 Oct. 2014 Chrismartin76 added the following to the section on Psychology...

Moreover, intersectionality theory has been falsified by psychological research, showing that the additive effect of "oppressed" identities is not necessarily negative.[citation needed] For instance, black gay men are perceived as possessing positive traits.[40][41] Nevertheless, some recent publications point to the development of a psychology of intersecting identities.[42] See also

It has been "falsified"?!? According to anybody else but Chrismartin76? Doesn't sound very encyclopedic but rather like ignoring WP:POV... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.189.22 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The best articles on Wikipedia usually has a criticism or alternate views section, and for good reason. It's not interesting only to hear what adherents to a particular theory say about said theory.

As it stands, this article is hardly encyclopedic, and reads more like a subpar essay on intersectionality. How does everybody feel about including a section with criticism of intersectionality, that could feature (for example) kyriarchy vs. intersectionality: What is the criticism of intersectionality from that viewpoint? Intersectionality is anchored in critical theory: What do critics of critical theory say about intersectionality? Intersectionality has a lot of support from feminists, but there are also feminists critical of the concept, what are their criticisms of intersectionality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.189.22 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed--hopefully someone can step up and do some of the work involved in this. I'll try to find time to contribute at some point and I hope others call for this will do this as well. -Pengortm (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Sojourner Truth, but I am not completely sure that that quote is about exclusion from a women's movement. I had always thought it was an ironic remark in reference to the fact "women" were described by men as the weak sex, the fair sex, etc. while black women had been and were being subjected to work on the level of draught animals. I believe she was commenting on this discrepancy with irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F153:F000:9970:EFED:5E52:4D68 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You might be right. I just read over the article on the speech, and I think that characterizing it as a speech that "critiqued the exclusion of black women from the mainstream white feminist movement" isn't quite right. I've gone ahead and changed it, with a source for the interpretation offered, which is just what I was able to come up with with a few minutes of Googling. Perhaps someone who knows the relevant scholarship better could do a better job with that. -- Irn (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems, from my reading of this article, that "female" is always the base of the intersectionality layer-cake. No matter how many of the other attributes he has - gay, black, poor, disabled, etc. - no man will ever be admitted to this "multiple discrimination victims club". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a particular part of article that contains an error or inaccuracy? If so, please point out the particular section(s). Otherwise, this is not a forum for discussing the concept of intersectionality itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not one specific part, the entire article only discusses intersections that include (or imply that they include) "female" as one of the intersecting factors, thus a reader can reasonably deduce that this concept somehow excludes males. Adding a few examples that do include, or at least do not exclude, maleness, would really help. The concept itself clearly emerged out of (amongst others) feminist scholarship, but surely it is not a "no boys allowed" subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

IntersectionalityInBoise.jpg nicely illustrates the outsider within subsection: the young Afro-American female STEM student is at its center. Too, she is a member of the BSU Afro-Black Student Alliance at a grassroots organizational event which was intersectional, and indeed specifically publicized itself as such. kencf0618 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the talk page. It would have been simpler if you did this the first time before reverting my explained edit without explanation. The picture is one of a black woman and three apparent white people talking. I don't think it adds anything substantive or illustrative and should be removed. It strikes me as primarily decorative and distracting - see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. -Pengortm (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The black woman, Camille Eddy, is an engineering student and a member of the BSU Afro-Black Student Alliance; she introduced President Obama when he spoke here. As a black woman in STEM she nicely illustrates the outsider within. See WP:IDLI. kencf0618 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how her name or introduction of Obama are relevant. I re-read the outsider within passage. The picture doesn't illustrate any of those abstract points which are not evident in any real way in the photo. -Pengortm (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If a photo of diverse people at a meeting about intersectionality doesn't illustrate intersectionality, what does? kencf0618 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." This strikes me as primarily decorative. I don't have a suggestion for a better photo, but articles don't need to have photos.-Pengortm (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Intersectionality is an abstract concept; it's necessarily going to be hard to illustrate. I don't see how this photo aids a reader in understanding the concept. Why would "a photo of diverse people at a meeting about intersectionality" illustrate intersectionality? Also, it's not a very good photo. I don't know, either, what would be a better photo, but I could imagine a picture of a sign, say, from the recent Women's March that uses an intersectional analysis or something like that. -- Irn (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Caste and gender section consists largely of a blockquote that is about two Indian women, one Dalit and the other of a more privileged caste. Both women wish to study mechanical engineering. The admissions test is in English, and the privileged woman has had more opportunities to learn English, and passes the entrance exam, while the Dalit woman fails the entrance exam, but is admitted anyway because of a quota. However, she still can't attend engineering school because she can't afford the tuition. This is supposed to illustrate intersectionality, in this case, of caste and gender. But, in my opinion, it fails to do so. For the Dalit woman, the quota cancels out the effect of her lack of opportunity to learn English and her status as a Dalit, and in the end, the only reason she doesn't attend engineering school is she can't afford it. But not being able to afford it could happen to anybody, male or female, Dalit or non-Dalit, rural or urban, or whatever. If India has a problem that people who want to improve their lives through higher education are denied that opportunity, India can solve that problem by making student loans and need-based scholarships more widely available, and (in my opinion) that, and not intersectionality, is what is illustrated by the blockquote example. A more illustrative example of actual intersectionality would have a person in two or more oppressed groups not being able to take advantage of an educational opportunity because of the synergistic interaction of being in multiple oppressed groups, rather than a person who can't take advantage of an educational opportunity for ultimately one reason. For example, if the illustrative example told of a low-income Dalit man and a low-income non-Dalit woman who received student loan and were able to study engineering, but a low-income Dalit woman was denied a student loan and couldn't study engineering, that would illustrate the intersectional effect of being both Dalit and female.

It may be that I am simply not getting the point. It may be that the blockquote really is a bad example for the purposes of illustrating the intersectionality of caste and gender and should be replaced with a better example. (It may be that the whole concept of intersectionality is muddled and that the illustrative example actually serves to illustrate how muddled the concept is.) I encourage greater experts than myself to improve this example and the article as a whole.

Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The section was inserted 12:18, 18 November 2016‎ by IP user 49.206.123.65, who doesn't have a talk page and who has made only two edits to Wikipedia: this one and the article about Kirthi Jayakumar, author of the blockquote. If nobody comments here, and nobody does anything to improve this section, eventually I am going to remove this section altogether. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As a white male who surfs through life on my privilege oppressing all I meet unconsciously, I demand, as anyone who lives life atop the pyramid would, that this article needs a critique section.

I do appreciate the article, as it seems to say that Intersectionality is a way to put a partial ordering on the oppression wars (I am more oppressed than you!).

Who is more oppressed, a fat white male retard in a wheelchair or say, a female african american secretary of state?

With Intersectionality, I now understand why it's the latter and not the former.

So thanks article editors! --Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.29.232.165 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sarcasm wasn't necessary, but I do think a criticisms section would be helpful, if the critiques exist and can be found. 137.150.173.10 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Intersectionality isn't about competing to see whose oppression is the worst; it's about examining the way the different kinds of oppression interact. The article has a heavy focus on the intersection between race and gender, I agree, but that's because the concept of intersectionality developed within black feminism, not because black women claim to be most oppressed. Black feminists have been examining intersectionality the longest, so there are more reliable sources about the intersect of race and gender than about the intersect of dis/ability and weight. Nobody's implying that a white male can't be oppressed, or that your particular oppression isn't "good enough". --154.5.119.176 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources come from the preponderance of factual data and the logical conclusions that result; not from the prepoderance of voices repeating the same concepts. Be careful about assuming that just because there are a dozen more books supporting the subject in so many years automatically means that the theory is in fact predictive (which is required for any theory to be a theory). It's far too easy for an author to take others' works and simply colate and restate them and call the result their own without doing any actual relevent research. Yes. I too think there should be a critique of this. Without a qritique, this concept is just an argument, not a theory as is stated. With a valid refutable critique, the strength of the subject will become clearer and it will either be firmly a theory, or forever hyperbole. Personally, as a systems analyst, I understand how interconencted systems can interact un sometimes unexpected ways. But in this case, what has to be shown to me is how these social interactions exceed in magnitude the individuals own life choices and in particular the choices they make in not resisting the choices of their immediate peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.225.170 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly feels as if the article was written originally as an essay presenting the essential features of intersectionality, as suggested below. As it stands, the article isn't up to wikipedia's normal standards- a critique section could address some of the commonly cited issues with intersectionality as a theoretical framework. Namely: the lack of a well-defined corresponding methodology, the use of black women as the prototypical intersectional objects, the ambiguity present in the definition of intersectionality (alluded to elsewhere on this talk page) and issues regarding the desirability and practicality of incorporating intersectionality into a coherent political agenda. Although intersectionality is certainly in fashion, it is far from being as unquestioningly accepted as the article implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.199.178 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding another voice to the chorus in favor of a critique section. Just today I was reading an article in the New York Times written by the Politics Editor at Bustle who was complaining about how, as a Zionist, she didn't feel that there was any room for her in the Feminist movement, because for example on International Womens Day they had made part of their Feminist Manifesto to "decolonize Palestine". On Twitter people have been calling her a white supremacist over her New York Times editorial. Meanwhile, one of the women listed as an official organizer of International Womens Day events is a literal Muslim terrorist. These people are abusing the concept of intersectionality to push an anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment agenda. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/does-feminism-have-room-for-zionists.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.77.46 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The critique section is still very weak, and in the first paragraph includes a source from the ECPI, a Democratic/Union thinktank. That line needs to be removed or add one of the articles debunking the 83 cents on the dollar claim. ```````````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.44.57 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The concept of Intersectionality was coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Williams, she is one of many scholars of gender and social science that come from a background in jurisprudence. Alan Dershowitz is one of the pre-eminent legal scholars in the US. --tickle me 19:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Crenshaw is a lawyer but also a critical race scholar. Her concept is not a legal one but a social science one. As such, it makes little sense to have lawyers who are not social theorists commenting on it. There's an issue of WP:UNDUE as well; the dismissal of intersectionality is not exactly mainstream. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC

Mrs Williams has a bachelor's degree in government and Africana studies, else, all her learned expertise is in legal. I liken this to the criticism of Siegmund Freud, who would eschew the scientific method altogether relying on intuition and theory. You wouldn't need to be a psychologist to criticise this approach scientifically. --tickle me 20:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there another expression that can be used rather than "women of color"? The term is meaningless - it is meant to imply non-white, of course, but neither black nor white are colours! As the meaning is "non-white women", why not simply say that?203.80.61.102 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

While I feel that the parts of this page support the topic a number of the sentences are awkward or extremely long and difficult to follow. I found them distracting to read and quite often lost track of the point of the sentence. The last sentence under "Intersectionality in Practice" is huge and takes so many turns by the end I am not quite sure what was trying to be conveyed. I think reworking it into a three or four smaller sentences would have greater impact on what is trying to be said. The second and third sentences under "Psychology" are very awkward. Jenmom1973 (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I added a healthcare perspective, and included a worldview as well; all of my sources are from scholarly articles and journals. Please let me know if anyone would like to critique or review my changes.Gabbyaaguilar (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't perfect, but it looked okay to me. I disagree with the assertion by @Pengortm: that it's "not clearly linked back in meaningful ways to intersectionality and appears to dependent on primary sources". Journal articles are not primary sources, and they clearly add a layered perspective of discrimination based on intersecting identities, which is to say, intersectionality. -- irn (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I can’t find that the ideas expressed in the first sentence of this article are supported by the source that’s cited. The essay by Patricia H. Collins doesn’t discuss “creating a whole” out of “oppression, domination," etc. Also Collins essay doesn’t define intersectionality as a theory. The essay states that the term has “definitional fluidity”, and Collins discusses the topic as three sets of concerns: (a) a field of study; (b) an analytical strategy; and (c) as critical praxis.

The second sentence of the article refers to “These aspects of identity”, and those "aspects of identity" clearly seem to refer back to the previous sentence, where the aspects include: "related systems of oppression, domination" and so on, (not all of which are "aspects of identity"). However the words being quoted in the second sentence do not refer to those aspects of the first sentence, instead the source refers to different aspects such as: “race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age.” So what is stated in the source, has been given a “spin” or a “twist” and a different meaning when it appears in this Wikipedia article. That’s not accurate editing, and not a proper use of a source. This problem is easily verified because the citation (which is an article by Patricia H. Collins) links to the source essay. This needs to be corrected, but considering that it involves the first two sentences of the lead section, I’d like to invite any thoughts or suggestions. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be suggested in the essay by Patricia H. Collins and also in an interview with Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in the NewStatesman (“Crenshaw on intersectionality: "I wanted to come up with an everyday metaphor that anyone could use”) that there have developed different definitions of the term. I think the issue of multiple definitions can be dealt with the way a dictionary deals with definitions, but I think the first definition by the person that coined the term should be given first place, and replace the start of the lead that’s there now, and which seems to be (as I indicated above) unsourced and not based on the citation that follows it. Here’s my suggestion, which I’m considering putting at the start of the lead (it’s based on the interview with Crenshaw in the NewStatesman):

Intersectionality is a theory that considers that various human aspects, such as race, orientation and gender, do not exist isolated and separated from each other, but have complex, influential and interwoven relationships; and those relationships are essential. When systems of justice or other entities attempt to separate and isolate each aspect, then misconceptions may occur and essential understandings may be lost. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the lead section as discussed above. I’ve added a reference with a citation, and I haven’t deleted any reference. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Intersectionality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307073127/http://www.daltrijournals.org/IJDTSW/pdf/Shubha%20Intersection1.pdf to http://www.daltrijournals.org/IJDTSW/pdf/Shubha%20Intersection1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://unityandstruggle.org/2013/09/12/i-am-a-woman-and-a-human-a-marxist-feminist-critique-of-intersectionality-theory/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817142608/https://www.sfu.ca/iirp/documents/resources/101_Final.pdf to https://www.sfu.ca/iirp/documents/resources/101_Final.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The intro section is far too long. Ben Finn (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Heavy focus on women leads to the conclusion that the article was written by an intersectional feminist (the word women appears more than 70 times in the article in contrast with 5 or so appearances of the word men) with little regard for objectivity or neutrality. The term 'of color' is ill-defined. Does it mean non-white? If so, why not put it that way to avoid any confusion? Intro should be shortened for brevity and so that criticism (one sentence) is not drowned out by the rest of the (oversized) intro. Perhaps the incident from the Evergreen State College article could be linked, along with other student protests and incidents in the last year or so caused by clash of intersectional feminism with personal freedoms (maybe even mention Trigglypuff, Smugglypuff, R2dindu...). Overall, the article looks very sloppy as far as adherence to standards goes. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What is neutral is determined by what the literature about the topic includes and how it presents it, and so is the vocabulary we should use. So kindly present some reliable sources about intersectionality that can be the basis for your suggested edits. The intro is on the long side, but it is not very oversized according to the guidelines, and the weigfht given to different viewpoints in the lead should reflect the weight they have in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Under the section headed “Dismissal as nonacademic”, this article is claiming that Jonathan Haidt is making a comment about “intersectionality” (the topic of this Wiki article). That's not true. The citation comes from Alan Dershowitz who says that Haidt is discussing “intersectionality”, and Dershowitz then quotes Haidt on the Charlie Rose show. The problem is that in the quote (and on the Charlie Rose show) Haidt never mentions “intersectionality”, Haidt doesn’t discuss intersectionality, and Haidt never says anything to suggest that he is thinking what Wikipedia claims he’s thinking. Dershowitz is free to spin and interpret Haidt loosely, but for Wikipedia (in this article) to claim it is what Haidt is thinking — is not accurate. Also the heading “Dismissal as nonacademic” is false because Haidt does not say anything resembling that idea. So all this needs to be corrected. I deleted it, but my deletion was undone. I welcome any discussion of this. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So the problem appears to be that although this article is accurately representing what the source says, the source is misrepresenting what was actually said by Haidt. What's needed is a better source. But as it stands at the moment, the article is accurately representing what the RS says, so it's a pretty grey area until a better source can be found. Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When an apparently credible claim of misrepresentation is made against a source, it's wrong to refer to it as a RS without refuting the claim of misrepresentation. It either is misrepresenting the issue or it is an RS, it cannot be both. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not the definition of an RS, actually. This would require deeper investigation, I haven't listened to the interview, and don't really have a dog in the fight. Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That Washington Examiner Dershowitz piece is an opinion piece, so it can't be used an RS for anything other than Dershowitz's opinion, anyway. -- irn (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I added citations to Haidt's "The Age of Outrage" speech at the Manhattan Institute. I also changed the title of the section as it seemed editorial. It's now titled, "Oversimplification".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The footnotes that editor Mark D Worthen PsyD has found still don’t accurately support the content in the article that’s being discussed here. And why should they? The content that’s being discussed is supposedly based on Alan Dershowitz’s opinion piece: “Intersectionality is a code word for anti-Semitism” — Dershowitz’s primary point in his article seems to be to equate intersectionality with bigotry. Rather than shopping around to find sources that will support Dershowitz’s opinion, someone could write honest content that reflects what Haidt is actually saying. I also respectfully don’t think that a lengthy Youtube video is a good source here. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

After some discussion here, I thought I would go ahead and edit to change the paragraph, I kept Haidt, along with one of the references where Haidt is addressing intersectionality. Its difficult to paraphrase, so instead I used a block quote. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using block quotes in this sort of situation, but I think that does a much better job of representing Haidt's actual argument, which is an improvement. -- irn (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! The paragraph makes a lot more sense now. :o) // Re: YouTube videos, I agree they are generally not a reliable source. I included the video because it came directly from the Manhattan Institute and because the YouTube citation was accompanied by a reliable citation to the City Journal. But it's not a big deal, i.e., let's leave it as is.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of actual Marxist feminists in the section titled "A Marxist-feminist critical theory" There seems to be only those who pick and choose aspects of Marxism that they like and apply it to intersectionality theory. 68.84.235.198 (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The worst of this page's issues right here. 130.216.235.1 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In an academic context Marxism tends to be used differently than in a political context. What they really mean is that utilize Marx's concept of the dialectic, descended from Hegel. This does not mean that they accept all elements of Marxism, the ideology. By nature they tend to pick and choose what parts of Marxism they find useful for developing their philosophical arguments. 2601:140:8980:106F:6597:706B:90EF:C4C1 (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I added this tag:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

to the article today. Reading this Talk page, it appears the article's point of view has been questioned with some regularity over the past several years. ¶ My perspective: A criticism section was added, which is a modest improvement. However, I would prefer to see critiques woven into the article where appropriate, as opposed to a separate criticism section. (Having both is also an option.) I highly recommend this essay: WP:CRIT. A quote from the essay:"In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias." ¶ I am personally sympathetic to many of the perspectives included in the article. At the same time, most of the article comes across as "preaching to the choir" i.e., the article assumes that the reader already agrees with the theories and perspectives presented. ¶ The article is biased, with much more emphasis given to pro-intersectionality (for lack of a better term) viewpoints. Let's discuss how to retain most of the current article, while weaving in other perspectives.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment - WP:CRIT is an essay. It has no weight as "policy"; in fact it appears to have failed approval as a guideline. & I disagree with the opinion that it expresses. It is much easier for readers to process the criticism of a concept/subject in a separate section, than when it is buried (& often hidden, dismissed, explained away, & gradually eliminated) from the body of a "laudatory" text. tl,dr - it's a "backdoor" to minimizing critical-dissenting opinions in articles; especially when there is a "prevailing opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.164.128 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The article would also benefit from copy editing, i.e., improving the structure, organization, grammar, and clarity of expression. However, I suggest that we focus first on achieving fairness, proportionality, and balance. (Of course, if you want to copy edit parts of the article, please do so! :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mark D Worthen PsyD, I respectfully disagree with this section (your “Neutral point of view?” section), with its premise, and also with the way you have “tagged” this article. I appreciate your concern, and I assume you are acting in good faith. But you haven’t presented anything substantial to support your ideas. For example, you claim that the article’s point-of-view has been questioned over the years. I notice very little indication of that. There is indeed a “POV” mention that goes way back to April of 2013 (!), but the article has been changed so much since then. You need to go back to 2013 look at the issue as it was expressed then, then look at the problem in the article that was targeted in 2013, and then you need to compare what you find with the article as it stands today. If you still see a problem — and can find support in reliable sources and can be verified — then you might have a point that you could make, if only about old comments. That might seem a bit of work, but if you don’t do it, then you must be expecting others to do the work that you’re suggesting. Also you mention the concept of “pro-intersectionality (for lack of a better term)”. I have no idea what that is. What is it? Actually, to be clear, I’m not asking you personally, Mark D Worthen PsyD, I’m only interested in content ideas you might find in reliable sources. That’s the way Wikipedia works, of course. I did an internet search for “pro-intersectionality” and found nothing to help you. Perhaps you will have better luck. But this is the kind of effort you need to make before you tag things. You claim the article is biased. That’s a strong charge. What makes you say that? Any examples? The tag is terribly heavy handed, and seems to be pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. You really should discuss things on this page first. Rutabagasubu (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are some examples of overstating the case:

Law and policy - "Intersectionality applies in real world systems within policies, practices, procedures, and laws in the context of political and structural inequalities." ==> Bold claim without any discussion of alternative viewpoints.

Social work - The 2nd paragraph discussing women with disabilities makes several statements as if they are proven facts.

Psychology - More unsubstantiated claims stated as fact. The arguments also lack coherence.

Intersectionality in practice - "Intersectionality can be applied to nearly all fields ..." While this paragraph provides citations for some fields, the initial claim ("nearly all fields") is hyperbolic.

Marxist-feminist critical theory - "... anti-miscegenation laws effectively suppressed the upward economic mobility of black women." That statement at least needs some explanation. As it stands, it implies that marrying white men was the path to upward economic mobility for black women.

Nonetheless, Rutabagasubu convinced me that the tag is heavy-handed, so I removed it. I believe that as the quality of writing improves, the article will come across as more balanced, particularly if the criticisms are woven in to other sections of the article.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I also made some substantial edits--mainly removing most of the introduction and a couple of incoherent sections.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Support the nnpov-tag. Do not have any trouble seeing how one-sided, & "uncritically accepting" of certain concepts, the article is. The other editor's complaint about the use of tagging is typical & "formulaic" for Wikipedia editors who resent criticism of "their" articles. Tags exist for a reason, & the editor who applied this one has done so correctly. That user has outlined their concerns in a clear & understandable manner. For the most part, I agree with them. Respectfully, I would strongly oppose removing the tag based on the 2nd user's glib dismissal of the criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.164.128 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not be so in love with their own opinions that they don’t see the need to support them or to find any reliable source. For example, just above, an editor claims they “Do not have any trouble seeing how one-sided … of certain concepts, the article is”, but does the editor give an example? No. And above that an editor invents a term and claims there is some kind of “pro-intersectionality” going on, but does the editor give an example? Again, no. I think the article WP:CRIT (that was cited above) does have value and should be considered. There is a fallacy that the word “criticism” is defined only as a “put down”. Which is an example of moronic “high school” thinking. Yet, as the article WP:CRIT indicates, that kind of thinking lives on in Wikipedia. But if you read a good book on any topic, you don’t usually find a chapter at the end devoted to critical “put downs”. In fact, the idea of “criticism” should include all kinds of thought. Any critically challenging ideas should be welcomed into the article and not shunted off in a corner where you will find the fallacy that thinks criticism can only be defined as a “put down”. Rutabagasubu (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Also this is an article about a framework and it will benefit in merely describing such framework without resorting to critiques every step of the way. For instance, regarding: "Intersectionality applies in real world systems within policies, practices, procedures, and laws in the context of political and structural inequalities." ==> Bold claim without any discussion of alternative viewpoints." I do not see the need for alternative view points. It is simply presenting that the approach can be applied to these conditions. The alternative views would probably involve limitations but these would not undermine the claim that it can be used in the given contexts. - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The section of criticism needs to be balance according with WP:UNDUE and needs to have "good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available "WP:BESTSOURCES, is not a place for soapboxing WP:NOTSOAPBOX by unrelated persons with political bias WP:POV. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: “unrelated person”, I am not familiar with that term in this context. Would you elucidate?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Related to sociology, it is a sociology related article. The content deleted fail several points of WP:NPOVHOW, is not balanced in content nor in tone, stating opinions as facts, and didn't indicate the relative prominence of the opposing views. We need consensus to include this opinions. WP:ONUS Rupert Loup (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sociology has relevance to this article, but it is broader than that. Crenshaw who introduced the idea to feminist theory is a civil rights advocate and lawyer--no degrees in sociology--but yet we still cite her. Intersectionality is a term linked to both a broad swath of scholarship and activism and prominent publically. Critiques can come both from scholars and other commentators in society--as long as they are properly qualified for what they are (e.g. not suggesting that a journalist is a scholar on the topic). I am not saying these critiques are valid--but they reflect a prominent strain of critiques for the publically prominent concept and should be reflecting this reality. If you feel that these critiques could be well juxtaposed with responses to these critiques to help balance things out, than by all means try your hand at this. -Pengortm (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Crenshaw is a professor who specializes in race and gender issues. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pengortm: You are adding quotes that are not in a neutral tone WP:IMPARTIAL. Please stop warring and discuss. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a criticism section--and people are making criticisms. Of course those particular comments might not be fully neutral tone. That does not mean they shouldn't be included. If they are prominent critiques we want to let them speak for themselves and include replies and reflect the reality of the situation.-Pengortm (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that, a healthy criticisms section is important in controversial articles. Basically anyone who has published (through a reliable publisher) anything related to this topic is relevant to include here. I don't have time right now to review these sources but I will try to remember tomorrow. We are only citing their opinions, not describing facts or the affirmative view of the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I took a quick look at one source for now, Jonathan Haidt. Appears to be widely published (and cited) in several fields that may be relevant. I guess we need to decide if being generally well published in those fields is adequate for inclusion. If there is going to be disagreement over this, maybe a list of the sources in this section should be posted at WP:RS/N where people experienced in determining who is an expert or reliable source for an opinion on this topic can evaluate them. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in here. One of the tricky things about intersectionality, so far as I can tell, is that it is both a scholarly concept and a concept that is more broadly applied in the public and among activists. As such, I think we want to include critiques that are both from relevant scholars, but also on the public usage of the concept. Perhaps better qualification of these two categories in the critique and other sections are in order. I also agree that the critique section and the larger article could use considerable improvements and pairing down. However, I think we want to be careful that these pairing down are balanced and not just taking out opinions that are disliked by some editors--but instead trying to fairly reflect things.-Pengortm (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to favor limiting citations to experts. A WP:SPS may be allowed from an expert, but even published sources from someone who is not a RS on the topic are of limited use. The exception I see is if someone's non-expert opinion has received media coverage in RS media and that coverage was not an editorial or opinion piece (by a non-expert). I think we can interpret the fields of study that would make someone able to form an expert opinion on this topic fairly broadly (if their expertise overlaps at all), as far as the Criticism section is concerned. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the first three paragraphs for criticism is fine and relevant. The Psychology section, seems less like a criticism and more like a parallel ideology and might be between suited to be incorporated in the practice section. (I'm thinking of the example of Butler's performativity and Zimmerman and Zimmerman in sociology coming up with a similar idea before). Tho, feminism i don't think should be an academic silo, it's unrealistic for authors to be aware of everything. The last two paragraphs in the Feminist thought section, could be added to criticism, perhaps.Fred (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi I cannot see how this theory can really be applied universally around the world. I am new to wikipedia editor. but i know that earlier cultures Paleolithic/Neolithic were relatively more less gender equal as we appear to see them today, and that these subjects tend to base their evidence in the traditional "battleground" of North American culture, I would like to see more citations from more diverse cultures and times or have that warnings questioning this as as local phenomena/observation. Sorry this is my first day =) 60.241.64.10 (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am doing a project for my ENGL class and will be adding a global perspective section to this article. There are a few scholarly sources that I have from my library database that address the topic of intersectionality from a multitude of different countries, backgrounds, and other sociological classifications. I would argue that adding this perspective will help to better meet the Wikipedia criterion well researched because it will begin to acknowledge something other than the United States perspective. What do the rest of you think about this? Trapgoddessssss (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this article could use a section on how intersectionality is viewed politically (generally supported by the political left and not supported by the political right). Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion and two dollars will get you a coffee. Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad. 70.29.99.162 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Without a "criticism/other views on" section it does not provide a neutral point of view. Quality rating should therefore be below "C". 87.154.134.5 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F153:F000:9970:EFED:5E52:4D68 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why I bother to explain this to anonymous critics of Wikipedia, but "neutral point of view" does not translate to representing every critic and fringe view on notable topics. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If rarely in my life seen a worse straw man argument. That POVs like these are followed upon, just show that Wikipedia is more or less openly politically controlled by certain interest groups. RandomPerson (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Concept of oppressive non-objective realities is one that ultimately has a literary or humanistic aspect. Countries, money, politics, these are not objective things - they exist only in the imaginations of people.

A significant academic challenge to this concept sees it as a religious movement that works on similar principles:

1. A non objective imaginary reality is created 2. Gods are imaginary invisible forces that impact humans 3. Gods eventually become one god to permit that particular group of people to unite, rather than to claim each one's god is superior 4. People define themselves, being complex animals with many aspects to them, only through the lens of the imaginary idea (ie "Christian," "Jew," "feminist." 5. The imaginary idea is extremely attractive, because it is simplistic - complex human interactions are explained in simplistic terms by a process of stair-scapegoating, "punching-up" by placing blame or responsibility on the demographic group that the ideology defines as contrary to it - ie God and Satan. 6. Satan emerges as an evil imaginary force on whom all blame is deposited. Rather than take responsibility for what needs change, ministers and priests blame this imaginary identity - he is also known as the European Origins Man. 7. To alleviate oneself from guilt or work (Nietzsche points out that two forces are the most powerful in a human - laziness and moral self exculpation) all the sins of a people or person are placed on a symbolic goat, where we get the term scape-goat. One goat is sacrificed to Jehovah as a sin offering for Aaron and the Kohenim, and one goat is sent off into the desert for the devil. 8. White Men in positions of power who dare to challenge the believers are subjected to witch hunts and scarlet letters, they are burned at the altars of shame by the fundamentalists, who by this point see everything in their lives through this hypnosis. 9. The religion becomes inexorable piece of identity and a tool for not only social control of the people over whom the religion has a domain (children are born and are brainwashed into the ideology, then grow up and don't have a frame of reference - it becomes their truth ie millenials) and even theologians of this religion are hired on at Oxford to teach next generations of ministers in the ideological axiums of the cult. 10. Many people in the religion begin earning money from it. They get professorships and journalist appointments. Because they think of themselves as doing the work of God, as being moral and just, they attack viciously anyone who disagrees - when the most obvious targets are removed, and having become hungry with power and rage and resentment and anger (fake realities don't answer prayers so the believer is always unhappy) they move on increasingly less defined targets, and silence all protests and disagreements. 11. They become de-sensitized completely to hearing opposition, since they never hear anyone oppose them, and as they begin to revel in the power and self-importance and titles and clerical collars, they become tyrants. Ideology becomes only a means to their own power, and only a talking point that even the so called believers no longer believe.. 12. Schisms begin internally, where the rotten ideology fueled by self interest causes many sect leaders to seek out their own position of power. And segregated already into positions of power, since the dialectic is imaginary, imaginary power seeks public standing and receives is in blows between God and Satan, between fundamentalism and ultra fundamentalism. 13. The religion eats itself to a large degree as it becomes apparent to critical thinkers how fake it is. 14. Over time, it becomes just another human idea that had claimed countless victims, destroyed lives, claimed lives, ended careers, publicly shamed people. 15. Cersi blows up the temple with fire.

Canlawtictoc (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgot 16. A different political religion takes over promising to wipe the scourge of religion. 17. It also becomes a religion. 18. Hagel: humans become stuck between God and Satan, between thesis and antithesis. 19. They forget their own humanity because it is easier to delegate responsibility to heavenly mothers and fathers. 20. Religion poisons everything.

Canlawtictoc (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose moving the content within the key concepts around and potentially adding it to theories and the introduction. The content is based only upon Patricia Hill Collins' "Learning from the Outsider Within" and the editor got their subsections from Collins' list of three key themes in oppression. Thus, this section stems from a single piece, so is very one-sided, and does not add new information. This section also restates theories that are present within previous sections of the article and largely does not connect to the topic of this article. Last, since the wording is largely lifted from Collins' piece, the language used is largely inaccessible and hard to understand. I think the general coherence of this article would benefit from the rewording and reorganization of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwinsp2019 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I am going to put the bit about Bradley Campbell's critiques back in. As noted in my previous edit summary, "a) a blog from an expert on the topic is a legitimate source, b) he says similar things in the book (now cited), c) insisting on secondary coverage of a scholars critiques seems tendentious and much of the material in article would not hold up to this". The deletion of it as being poorly sourced and a single perspective do not make sense to me because he is a notable expert on the topic and we have plenty of single perspectives in wikipedia--that kind of comes with the territory when someone puts forth an idea. -Pengortm (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

So who is Bradley Campbell (Bradley Campbell (sociologist)?) and why is his particular expert opinion encyclopedically significant to this degree? How are readers supposed to evaluate this opinion? Of even greater concern, this is an excessive level of detail based on these relatively flimsy sources. An expert opinion may or may not be helpful, but the way to determine this would be with reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Campbell is a sociologist with particular expertise relevant to the topic as can be seen from his peer-reviewed publication record and a recent book . Here are some other references to his opinion in various mainstream sources which I think demonstrate that he is prominent enough that his ideas should be featured. : . And a couple other sources I am less sure of, but which still look legit to suggest that he is a public commentator who has influence, expertise and sway: . -Pengortm (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If reliable, independent sources summarize his opinion as an expert opinion, use those sources instead of his blog. Otherwise this risks cherry-picking and unnecessary bloat. To be clear, this is already a problem with this article, but we should at least avoid making it worse. His bio page at his own school explains who he is to us as editors, but it does nothing to explain this to readers, since it's a routine WP:BLPSELF which doesn't mention intersectionality. I do not accept that Quillette is reliable or weighty, and event listings are never useful for this kind of thing. No comment on the rest other than WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I think I see more where you are coming from here. It does seem like a higher burden to post than is usually applied. I can see this sort of criteria as one means of trimming down the bloat. For the same reasons you outline, do you think the paragraph about what, "Marie-Claire Belleau" argues should be removed? -Pengortm (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I would not remove it, although I agree it could be condensed or simplified. There is a strong caveat, though. These two paragraphs are in different sections providing different context, so they must be evaluated on their own terms. I could attempt shorten this, but without the source on hand this would be risky in its own ways. This is part of the problem with WP:CRITS, which often draw arbitrary lines. We want quality commentary about a topic, but this commentary seldom neatly falls into pro/con categories. What is appropriate in one place may or may not be in another. Criticism sections are almost always messy, in other words.

One thing I notice comparing these two sources via Worldcat is that the Cambell book was written with Jason Manning, who is also an associate professor of sociology, so any use of that book should probably be attributed to both of them. Marie-Claire Belleau is this person, and looking at that profile the presumption is that she meets WP:NPROF, but perhaps that's getting lost in the weeds. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentence incorrectly identifies deconstruction as "a literary criticism method." Deconstruction did not directly emerge out of literary criticism, and literary criticism is hardly the only field touched by deconstruction. Derrida was trained as a philosopher, for example, and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw was trained in law. It would be helpful to insert a link to the Wikipedia page on "deconstruction." Jk180 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the misleading LEAD per BRD, since it was only added earlier in the week and replaced a much less misleading version. Intersections analysis is limited neither to critical theory nor to deconstruction, nor are the two to be equated except in the dreams of certain neo-Messianic "psychologists". Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The reversion doesn't fix what I'm certain is an inaccuracy: deconstruction is not "a literary criticism method." I deleted that inaccurate parenthetical comment from the article along with the glancing reference to deconstruction. Intersectionality didn't grow out of deconstruction. Jk180 (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are quite right: the original error was added (by Moxy) in mid-May, but the erroneous text was less prominent in its original location. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"... Is that every human mind has its own biases in judgment and decision-making that tend to preserve the status quo by avoiding change and attention to ideas that exist outside one's personal realm of perception.[73]"

73. Gorrell, Michael Gorrell (2011). "E-books on EBSCOhost: Combining NetLibrary E-books with the EBSCOhost Platform". Information Standards Quarterly. 23 (2): 31. doi:10.3789/isqv23n2.2011.07. ISSN 1041-0031. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.1.115 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.niso.org/sites/default/files/stories/2017-12/SP_Gorrell_NetLibrary_isqv23no2.pdf

On top of the page, there is a clear statement: 'simple definition and simple example'. A bit further down, there is a section with the statement 'theory here'. In my opinion, the first two sentences were not a 'simple definition':

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of a person's social and political identities (e.g., gender, Caste, sex, race, class, sexuality, religion, disability, physical appearance, height, etc.) combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege.

In this edit, I changed it to

Intersectionality is a term that describes how aspects of a person's social and political identities create combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these aspects are gender, Caste, sex, race, class, sexuality, religion, disability, physical appearance, and height. Intersectionality identifies advantages and disadvantages that are experienced by people due to a combination of factors.

User:Newimpartial reverted my edit, with the summary "Reverted per WP:ISATERMFOR.", and you're right: 'is a term for' is not a good solution. Just now, I edited it again, and listed the different aspects after the first sentence, not in the middle of it. I also think the first sentence would be a simpler definition if it read

Intersectionality is a theory in the social sciences that describes and explains how aspects of a person's social and political identities create combinations of discrimination and privilege.

I hope you agree. Laurier (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I'm not opposed to removing that specific paragraph, but I think we need to reflect something about the criticisms as they are a significant part of the article. How about something like...

Intersections has been critiqued as being ambiguous and open-ended. As it is based in standpoint theory, critics say the focus on subjective experiences can lead to contradictions and the inability to identify common causes of oppression

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly much better. I can't speak to the original removal, but my re-removal was based on the concept of "ideology", which isn't substantiated in the body at all but was treated as fact in that paragraph. I by no means hold that criticism should be excluded from the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Sounds good! I'll add that text. I'm sure it could stand to be improved, but better than nothing. And FWIW, I see your point about the old text. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I've improved this by adding a mention of each of the sections in "Criticism". DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a question about what it means when the ADL condemns something. The answer is that it means a lot, and isn't a step that's taken lightly.

ADL criticism of intersectionality has continued beyond the Women's March. For example, this event happened just last year. https://florida.adl.org/event/anti-semitism-intersectionality-and-the-white-privilege-marginalization-of-the-jews-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That article is not written by the ADL. It is an op-ed syndicated in the ADL blog by a member of the ADL. Could you explain how you think the link here is criticism? And context is very important. The op-ed discusses the women's march at length. It is unclear why you removed that context. Jlevi (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SYNDICATED for a brief explanation of what's happening, and look at the header region of the linked article. It's not a big deal if it's from the original publisher or from the ADL. Usually I try to link original publishers. Again, note that this was not written by the ADL itself, but by one of its members. Jlevi (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's merely the opinion of one person who happens to be an ADL member. It's not an official position statement of the ADL, they are not even the original publisher. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's much more than an ADL "member". The point is that they wouldn't publish anything they weren't putting their reputation behind. The ADL would never allow someone in a leadership position to publish something they're opposed to. More than not opposing it, they're promoting it. The point isn't that it's written by a leader of the ADL; it's that the ADL is promoting it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In the third paragraph it is written: "Intersectionality opposes analytical systems that treat each oppressive factor in isolation, as if the discrimination against black women could be explained away as only a simple sum of the discrimination against black men and the discrimination against white women." I think that the sentence should be abbreviated to the portion that exists before the comma. The "as if..." portion seems slightly biased? or just a little conversational. I understand it is linked to the Krenshaw TedTalk, but it is a little confusing as well out of context. Nicoleemory (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Under the Resisting oppression section, it says:

Marginalized groups often gain a status of being an "other".[56]:S18 In essence, you are "an other" if you are different from what Audre Lorde calls the mythical norm. Gloria Anzaldúa, scholar of Chicana cultural theory, theorized that the sociological term for this is "othering", i.e. specifically attempting to establish a person as unacceptable based on a certain, unachieved criterion.[54]:205

which I'm not sure is entirely relevant to the section. Could it be a separate section entirely?

Clrsy0309 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3363033. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"For example, a black woman might face discrimination from a business that is not distinctly due to her race (because the business does not discriminate against black men) nor distinctly due to her gender (because the business does not discriminate against white women), but due to a combination of the two factors."

This example would make sense in the context of a highly mixed-race society, such as that in the United States, but seems to make no sense for societies with a single homogeneous race, such as China or India or Mexico or countries in Africa, etc. In other words, the example may only be properly understood by those acclimated to the U.S. This indicates that a more global and inclusive example should be constructed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The example makes sense in African countries like South Africa, which has a large white, Indian and black population. Perhaps you could make the example slightly wider by talking about colourism, which would then also be highly applicable to countries like Jamaica or India which have more homogeneity of race (but still privilege lighter-skinned people). However, any example will always be tied to some subset of cultures because the identities in question—gender, race, class etc.—are social constructs that will meaningfully vary across historical periods and communities. We don't want to sacrifice clarity by making an example too abstract. Perhaps we could specify "a black woman in the United States" in the given example as a concrete case of a mixed-race society? — Bilorv (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The example used in the Introduction needs clarification. "For example, a black woman might face discrimination from a business that is not distinctly due to her race (because the business does not discriminate against black men) nor distinctly due to her gender (because the business does not discriminate against white women), but due to a combination of the two factors." The only way I can make sense of the example is by assuming that there are scales (eg 1 to 10) to measure "race" and "gender". Then I would interpret the example as follows: The business discriminates in a binary fashion, such that anyone with a "race score" >5 is rejected, and anyone with a "gender" score >5 is also rejected. But if someone scores >4 on both categories they are also rejected.

The underlying issue doesn't seem to be something called "intersectionality", but instead that race and gender are both being used to reject candidates using criteria that are very probably irrelevant to job performance. I'm not sure that the fact businesses might use a combination of such factors is any worse than them using the 2 factors in isolation. The issue is the relevance of the factors to performance not the precise way the 2 factors are combined. Paulhummerman (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In the example, it's not considered racial discrimination because the business does not discriminate against black people generally, just black women. Similarly, it's not considered gender discrimination because the business does not discriminate against women generally, just black women. It's a unique combination of racial and gender discrimination only experienced at the intersection of race and gender by people who experience both racial and gender discrimination. -- irn (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

third paragraph: Intersectionality is a qualitative analytic framework developed in the late 20th century that identifies how interlocking systems of power affect those who are most marginalized in society[9] and takes these relationships into account when working to promote social and political egalitarianism. How is a analytical framework working to promote anything? I would suggest to replace the last part with: ... are most marginalized in society[9]. Many activist use the framework to promote social and political egalitarianism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorseth (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thorseth: doesn't sound controversial to me, so I've made the change here, with the wording: Activists use the framework to promote social and political egalitarianism. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--Thorseth (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19, Sideswipe9th, and Bilorv: this dispute over content in §Antisemitism is probably worth discussing outside of edit summaries. Denver, maybe you could start by letting us know why you feel the content should be removed? You could also clarify which prior discussion you are referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Note, Bilorv is already talking about this over on DeverCoder19's talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

First, I reverted the inclusion of this material. Consensus should first be established before re-adding it.

Second, it is not WP:NPOV to end every section that has a negative view of a topic with a follow up that has a positive view. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies to any BOLD edit to the page. That can be re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information. Where content has been in the article for some time, WP:STATUSQUO also applies. I know on your talk page you referenced a talk page here comment from circa December 2020/January 2021, however we've not been able to definitively identify that, you have not provided a diff for that or a link to it in the archive, and I'm somewhat concerned now that your argument for this deletion has changed. It would help this discussion a lot if it could be established now what the basis for this deletion was.

As for your WP:NPOV point, explicitly no. That would very quickly and very easily lead to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand NPOV, conceiving of a rule that does not exist. NPOV is to present the sources available with proportionate coverage and no omissions based on ideological objections. If there are counter-arguments to criticisms then we present them. There are no rules about who gets the last word. Your bizarre and unheard of interpretations of policy extend to your misrepresentation of WP:CONSENSUS, which does not say that you can edit war against people who dispute a change to the status quo, citing only a "closed" discussion that you cannot point us to. Considering your behavior in context gives less scope for assuming good faith in your repeated references to non-existent talk page discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the following section:

While the theory of intersectionality is not explicitly associated with antisemitism, critics have linked rhetoric around intersectionality with certain forms of antisemitism.^[1] In practice, critics claim intersectionality is used as an ideological means to justify antisemitism.^[2][3][4] Some journalists^[5][6][1] have noted that proponents of intersectionality tend to deemphasize the disadvantaged status of Jewish people or even to victim blame them. By creating a hierarchy of more and less oppressed groups, critics claim intersectionality has been used to create a narrative of blame that targets non-'oppressed' groups in general, and Jewish people in particular.^[7]

Others, however, have argued that intersectionality is a useful frame for understanding antisemitism in relation to other forms of oppression and that there is no inherent reason why intersectionality cannot be used to effectively illuminate the Jewish case.^[8][9][10] These writers contend that critics have engaged in a strawman approach, attributing antisemitic activity to "intersectionality" without explaining how they are connected and without engaging with the actual arguments and positions of intersectional theorists.^[11]

More information Sources ...

Sources

[1] Weiss, Bari (27 June 2017). "I'm Glad the Dyke March Banned Jewish Stars". The New York Times. [2] Brahm, Gabriel Noah (2019). "Intersectionality". Israel Studies. 24 (2): 157–170. doi:10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.13. JSTOR 10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.13. [3] "4 Ways for Jews to Intersect with Intersectionality". Philadelphia: American Jewish Committee. 2019-06-26. Retrieved 2020-12-21. [4] Osbourne, Monica (7 August 2019). "How Intersectionality Became a Sinister Threat to American Jewry". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved 21 December 2020. [5] "Alternative Chicago Pride event 'inclusive' to all, except Jews". The Jerusalem Post. 25 June 2017. [6] Flayton, Blake (18 March 2021). "A New Zionist Congress Is Born". Tablet Magazine. [7] Nazarian, Sharon (2018-01-25). "By Rejecting Jews, Intersectionality Betrays Itself". The Forward. Retrieved 2020-12-21. [8] Schraub, David (2019). "White Jews: An Intersectional Approach". Association for Jewish Studies (AJS) Review. 43 (2): 379–407. [9] Brettschneider, Marla (2017). Jewish Feminism and Intersectionality. SUNY Press.[page needed] [10] Greenebaum, Jessica (1999). "Placing Jewish Women into the Intersectionality of Race, Class and Gender". Race, Gender & Class. 6 (4): 41–60. JSTOR 41674909. ProQuest 218830519. [11] "A Letter to Fellow Jews on Open Discourse, Rigorous Inquiry, and Generosity of Spirit". Jews For Open Discourse. 29 June 2021.

Close

This text is full of weasel words and references to primary sources such as op-eds and blogs. To achieve balance, we need to cite reliable, secondary sources that do not have a direct interest in the controversy. Even the article in Israel Studies, a peer-reviewed academic journal, comes off as a rant: To act in this drama is to pose as witness to a bottomless pit of suffering [...] tirelessly excavated by bureaucrats whose real job is resentment management. As far as the managers are concerned (university faculty in the humanities and social sciences), the more victims the better. And yet, not all can participate in this celebration of misery on equal footing, since some of the biggest victims- for example, the Jews-are also among the most privileged. Confusing!^[1] It continues in a similar style, and it's hard to tell exactly what these effusive claims are about. Several of the sources are specifically about the controversy over the 2017 Chicago Dyke March banning the Jewish Pride Flag. As such, this material is out of proportion for an article on the general concept of intersectionality. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I just did a search in the Google Preview of Ange-Marie Hancock's Intersectionality: an intellectual history.^[2] I couldn't find any use of the term "antisemitism" or "antisemitic", leading me to suspect even more strongly that these criticisms are WP:UNDUE. Likewise, an encyclopedia entry on intersectionality by Antonio Duran and Susan R. Jones published just last year by Brill Publishers^[3] doesn't mention antisemitism either. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maxwell moilanen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Combatcait.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KMLogsdon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lwinsp2019, Jsuar99, Jordanhawkins, 123teddyme, Jmha2016. Peer reviewers: Naitib.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sleek002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MakayelaB. Peer reviewers: Tjking95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D.valdez32.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)