Talk:Marxism and the Oppression of Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

i realize that there's a source for "founding text in Marxist feminism" but marxist feminism had been going on for 100 years previous to 1983 ...... seems rather dubious? 132.216.59.29 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited information. See WP:VERIFY. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FreeKnowledgeCreator Thanks for your edits! I strongly agree with the above anon user. Whether of not there is a citation for someone considering this book being a "founding text" of Marxist feminism, something can't be a founding text if it is 100 years after when Marxist feminists started organizing. Consider the Wages for housework campaigns and Italian Marxist feminist writings around the 1970s... This book is a summary and commentary on such moments in history, not a founding text. Hexatekin (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:VERIFY. WP:NOTTRUTH is a useful essay that explains it. The point is simply that as editors it isn't our task to judge the truth or untruth of statements that appear in published, reliable sources - books and articles - that are considered reliable and scholarly. Rather, we simply report those views and leave it to the reader to judge. Terrell Carver's view that the book is "a founding text of Marxist feminism" is listed as his opinion, in any case, rather than fact. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read those essays but thanks. For now, I added in the name Terrell Carver there to make it more obvious that it is an opinion. Still, the opinion is anachronistic. My plan is to find a more historically accurate reference to clear it up in the intro. We can always move Carver's opinion down to the reviews section. Hexatekin (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the reference to the book being a foundational text of Marxist feminism from the lead since you seem to dislike it. I agree it is not crucial for the lead. It should not be removed from the "Reception" section, though; we are not supposed to be in the business of removing reliably sourced material we disagree with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]