Talk:Naomi Wolf

Wikipedia is a tool of slander

Naomi is a conspiracy theorist? Thats the sum of all of her experience, books and life? This is a sad sad platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.24.74.21 (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Way too much self-sourced content

This article can be trimmed considerably. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. There is too much quoting of her own work. Nangaf (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Misinfo and Info

The article talks about misinformation, but that word presumes the article possesses The Truth about covid. The reality is that science is evolving and depends on new empirical inputs. The covid vaccines were developed under Operation Warp Speed at great haste to try to cope with a global pandemic. Nobody on the planet knows the full and final "truth" about covid vaccines and what would constitute "true" information versus "misinformation." Science evolves In the summer of 2021, it was believed that 2 covid shots made a person "fully vaccinated" and good to go, but by the summer of 2022 it had sadly become true that people with 2 covid shots could conceivably get covid, spread it, be hospitalized with it, and indeed even die of it. A lot of the covid censorship was based on false certitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should we believe a random person on the internet (you) more than reliable sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Labelling her as a conspiracy theorist for presenting facts that weren't being discussed about COVID vaccines and side effects is completely biased and not journalistic. You claim right at the top of this page that articles must have a "neutral point of view." Calling her a conspiracy theorist for questioning side effects of an experimental vaccine that were later proven to be true is as un-neutral as it gets. Indigo Ibis (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You do not understand what "neutral" means on Wikipedia. It means adhering to what reliable sources say without inserting your own opinion, see WP:NPOV. So, your own opinion is that she "presented facts" and is not a conspiracy theorist. Reliable sources disagree with you, reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories on Twitter and her political positions

I propose adding her latest conspiracy theories about time travel vaccines to the main article under the conspiracy theories section.

Also, her current views and her audiences are neither liberal or progressive. She should no longer be called an 'American liberal' when she is playing to an audience of conservative and far-right cranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7910:D100:ECD5:5B48:C8F1:342B (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wolf's comments on Twitter don't seem to be gaining much traction in reliable sources, with the exception of her comments about her support for Joe Biden last November, including her recent statements about vaccines/time travel. For this reason, I think your removal of the liberal tag as a description of Wolf's politics is premature. Philip Cross (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

She eventually got suspended for vaccine disinformation (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57374241) JidGom (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" in first sentence

Why does introducing Wolf as a conspiracy theorist merit the "Since around 2014, Wolf has regularly been described as" context, when we wouldn't do that for any other change in a person's career? A television personality who successfully pivots to writing fiction doesn't get "Since 2020, he is also a writer", it just goes into the opening sentence as present tense. Either Wolf is now widely enough regarded as a conspiracy theorist for this to be in the opening sentence, or it's a minor aspect of her recent life and is already covered at the end of the lead: a strongly-positioned second sentence with caveats is neither one thing nor the other. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I only found citations from around 2014, and later, which describe Wolf as a conspiracy theorist. The more recent articles on her COVID theories use "conspiracy theorist" or such like in the headline, so the description would seem to be part of her current image rather more than, say, "leading third-wave feminist". In reviews of The End of America (2007), the beginning of Wolf's wacky perception of an imminent coup in the United States, she is not described as a conspiracy theorist. As with her book Vagina (2012), she is often said to be badly wrong. Philip Cross (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Merged the two passages in the summary on Wolf as a "conspiracy theorist". Wolf's 2004 account of "sexual encroachment" (which I see as entirely credible) should not be mixed up with her history of conspiracy theories since about 2014. Philip Cross (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably should be discussed again. The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" has returned to the summary's first sentence and has been added to the occupation parameter in the infobox. Philip Cross (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The way in which this is currently phrased doesn't make much sense and isn't consistent with other articles about people promoting conspiracy theories. For comparison look at the article on Paul Joseph Watson, who has been many things at different times but is described as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of his article. Saying that Naomi Wolf has been "described as a conspiracy theorist" after a certain date and putting this in the third paragraph down suggests ambiguity where there is none, and does not give due prominence to this aspect of her career. 82.0.123.129 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The difference is Paul Joseph Watson has been long been inclined to treat conspiracy theories seriously and began to strongly identify with Alex Jones and David Icke from his late teens more than 20 years ago, some time before he gained a public profile. His notability comes from his connection to fringe attitudes and individuals. Dr. Wolf is still first identified in recaps in reliable sources as the author of The Beauty Myth, a third-wave feminist and/or a former political consultant to leading Democrat politicians. Her turn to multiple conspiracy theories only came to media attention around 2013/2014. So, unlike Watson, Dr. Wolf's assertions since then are probably a secondary issue for this article's summary and those connected with the pandemic/her Twitter ban have gained only limited attention so far. Philip Cross (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC) ("theorist" corrected to "theories". Philip Cross (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC))

Describing her as a conspiracy theorist because she has different views is dishonest. I don’t donate to Wikipedia any longer because of the attack on those with different views. 2600:1700:70C1:11F0:B5F1:8A7A:59B3:222F (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Good thing that is not the actual reason then.

You cannot bribe Wikipedia into replacing facts by your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between withholding contributions and bribing someone or some institution. FYI Forkhume (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"I will not give you money unless you write what I want you to write" is the same as "I will give you money if you write what I want you to write". Bribe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You can tell a government official that you will no longer contribute to their campaign. But bribing is unlawful. There is a legal difference.

Bribing has a negative connotation, and implies that the subject is of a questionable character. Withholding contribution does not carry a negative connotation, and in fact passes the negativity to the receiver. That puts the contributor in a good light. Was this not your intention when you claimed he is bribing Wiki? Forkhume (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep your lawyerish sophisms. What matters is: you cannot force Wikipedia to change article content by waving a dollar bill, smiling and wagging your eyebrows. That will not change independent of what name you give it and which connotations that name has. It is still the same thing, and it is stupid and dishonest. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t donate to Wikipedia any longer because of the attack on those with different views. Sentiment expressed only by IP editors or accounts with no evidence of sustained engagement with Wikipedia. It is a rhetorical trope, not tied to actual actions. -- M.boli (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not implying any wrongdoing on the part of anyone, but everyone should be always wary of potential WP:RECENTISM as well as individual editors' own conscious and unconscious biases (including filter bubbles, search engine bias, limited literature access, and preconceptions). --Animalparty! (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sadly her dubious COVID claims, Twitter ban, and so forth are the main reason most people are aware of her now, regardless of how she originally came to prominence. Nangaf (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Proof of conspiracy theorist. "Those leaks, she alleged, showed that the FBI was privately treating OWS as a terrorist threat rather than a peaceful organization. The response to this article ranged from praise to criticism of Wolf for being overly speculative and creating a conspiracy theory." -- It is well known that the FBI has pursued activists and organizations for their political views. Case in point is FBI's requests to Twitter to cancel users and the news. Expressing an opinion that the FBI considers OWS as a terrorist threat, is not a conspiracy theory. Since the inception of the FBI, it has been accused of political persecution. But when Naomi Wolf repeats what anyone with a political acumen should know, she becomes a "conspiracy theorist" on top of her bio. Why cancel her? Is she now exiled from the place of the gods? Forkhume (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Its easy to check this. From the lead

Sources describing Wolf as a "conspiracy theorist" or using related terms include:

• Boteach, Shmuely (September 10, 2014). "Naomi Wolf's allegations of an Israeli genocide fuel anti-Semitism". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved April 2, 2021. Naomi is so enmeshed with conspiracy theories that she even questions whether ISIS is a true threat.
• Fisher, Max (October 5, 2014). "The insane conspiracy theories of Naomi Wolf". Vox. Retrieved April 2, 2021. [I]t is important for readers who may encounter Wolf's ideas to understand the distinction between her earlier work, which rose on its merits, and her newer conspiracy theories, which are unhinged, damaging, and dangerous.
• Brereton, Alex (October 6, 2014). "The line between conspiracy and scepticism is getting harder to draw – just ask Naomi Wolf". The Guardian. Retrieved April 2, 2021. So Naomi Wolf thinks that the Isis beheading videos may not have been genuine. In a series of Facebook posts over the weekend that also included theories about an Ebola-driven military quarantine of US society and fake ballots in the Scottish referendum, she crossed over into conspiracy territory.
• Ditum, Sarah (October 7, 2014). "Naomi Wolf is not a feminist who became conspiracy theorist – she's a conspiracist who was once right". New Statesman. London. Retrieved April 1, 2021. Perhaps it's not that Wolf is a feminist who's degenerated into conspiracism, but instead that she's a conspiracy theorist who happened to fall into feminism first.
• Moynihan, Michael (April 14, 2017) [October 11, 2014]. "From ISIS to Ebola, What Has Made Naomi Wolf So Paranoid?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved January 3, 2020. Wolf's path from respectability to conspiracy theory isn't uncommon.
• Aaronovitch, David (May 29, 2019). "Beware liberal attempts to rewrite history". The Times. Retrieved March 19, 2021. She is furthermore a serial espouser of mad conspiracy theories, insisting on their plausibility in the face of overwhelming evidence
• Kreizman, Maris (June 14, 2019). "A Journey With Naomi Wolf". The New Republic. Retrieved April 2, 2021. In 2014 she spread conspiracy theories including the belief that the beheading of two American journalists by ISIS was faked and staged.
• Poole, Steven (October 9, 2019). "Permanent Record: Edward Snowden spies on the spies". New Statesman. London. Retrieved March 19, 2021. 'Chemtrails' are what conspiracy theorists, including the author Naomi Wolf, call the contrails of jet planes: rather than being harmless water vapour, they think they are deliberate sprays of noxious chemicals into the atmosphere, for reasons unclear.
• Onion, Rebecca (March 30, 2021). "A Modern Feminist Classic Changed My Life. Was It Actually Garbage?". Slate. Retrieved April 2, 2021. I can see this progression of Wolf's thinking in every Trump- and COVID-era conspiracy theorist, from Stop the Steal to QAnon, who, like Wolf, seems to favor a 'natural order' where their particular problems rank first. It goes from 'this sucks so much' to 'someone is surely pulling these strings' to 'guys—I found the someone!'
• "Fauci got $1 million from Israel, 'doesn't work for us,' conspiracist Naomi Wolf says on Fox News". Haaretz.com. Apr 20, 2021. Retrieved Jan 7, 2022. Conspiracy theorist Naomi Wolf suggested that Dr. Anthony Fauci is beholden to Israel rather than serving the United States.

Softlemonades (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we justify labelling Naomi as a “conspiracy theorist” in her headline as an author? I feel like it’s very hard to maintain neutral point of view for an article on an author if they labelled a conspiracy theorist? I would make the point that more people know her first and foremost as an author. I believe it’s much more important to not label authors as conspiracy theorists unless a majority of people would consider that so. Dispute a topic doesn’t make someone a conspiracy theorist in absolute terms does it? binary.dat (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that "conspiracy theorist" is a value-laden term and one that we should be hesitant to apply unless it can be amply justified. The issue is how best to describe the path that her journalism has taken. She is certainly not *solely* a purveyor of misinformation. In my view she is a polemicist with demonstrable disregard for factual accuracy, whose reputation has nose-dived in recent years concurrent with her commentary taking on some paranoid characteristics. To my mind "conspiracy theorist" is therefore a valid descriptor. Whether it should be in the lede is a nuanced issue and not one on which I have a dogmatic opinion. I hope the discussion here can help arrive at consensus. Nangaf (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

not label authors as conspiracy theorists unless a majority of people would consider that so Wikipedia does not do majority votes. It is based on reliable sources instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"...according to mainstrem media..." makes it look like the article was wrien by a conspiracy theoristCzarnibog (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That half-sentence probably was, today. Reverted that edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I also think writing "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence is way too biased. It tells the reader what to think of her, as conspiracy theories are clearly negative. It would be better if the page just stated factually what her beliefs are. Thegivingtreeismyfavorite (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't. See WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

PhD thesis

Her PhD thesis was published at last, 6 years after being awarded, along with corrections to some of the issues and a torrent of critics on the thesis itself and wether the jury did a proper job. This can likely be used to further expand the article JidGom (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Is she opining on castrated sheep now? Not that I'm surprised. Nangaf (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Infertility: I think the point got droppped

Regarding the Covid vaccine infertility story. I think one take-away from the NPR article was that an early step in a typical meme-spread is that an influential person takes it up. That was Wolf, who then juiced the story up a bit and repeated it multiple times. The current language that Wolf tweeted a link to a Facebook article doesn't, I feel, do justice to the main point in the reference: Wolf is the one who dredged this story out of FB and made it popular -- M.boli (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Lazy editing

Conspiracy theory overused and misused to the point of meaninglessness, unless the point is to tar someone with the “kook” handle. love how Naomi’s work is so critically examined now she is not agreeing with her former tribe 2605:B100:91E:C203:B08A:6029:DD4F:6D94 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Please direct your complaints at the reliable sources the article takes the description from. We are just carrying the message, and we will not suppress part of it on your say-so. If you think that the term does not fit, find reliable sources that say it does not fit. Otherwise, there is nothing we can do without breaking the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

'Conspiracy theorist' is putting it mildly. Wolf is widely considered to be completely deranged, her Oxford DPhil a shameful embarrassment to a prestigious university. --Ef80 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"?! Have the rules of BLP been repealed? Or is Naomi Wolf now on the WP Enemies' List, such that protections that cover members of the WP Friends' List do not (or no longer) apply to her? Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is defamatory. There are no "reliable sources" that excuse such acts. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:64D1:EDDE:464:8BB1 (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

<<"... completely deranged" and embarrassment to Oxford>>?! -- What's the matter? That she does not easily submit to the newly established cultural authoritarians and elite-wannabee losers? I write this as someone who disagrees with many things she writes, but who can smell a tacit cancellation and ideological conspiracy from a mile away -- that ironically accuse her of "conspiracy theory". Forkhume (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Really? The curators spend a whole section denouncing Wolf for having some errors in her Outrages book and thesis, without telling us what this book or her thesis is about. This is demonstratively in bad faith.

There is more interest in cancelling her than being an encyclopedia entry about her. Forkhume (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

And what sources qualify as reliable in your estimation? 2600:1700:850:7520:6405:D7A5:6668:BB34 (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Wolf being a classic and principled dissident, feels compelled to dissent to the new established pseudo-elite and authoritarian order which seem to have taken over things. Forkhume (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Julian Assange rape allegations section

The page is protected so I cannot add this, but the page should set the record straight in that the Julian Assange rape allegations/investigations were completely dropped without results. See BBC news reporting from 2019. This is relevant in that it informs the actual outcome of the case. 190.195.146.6 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed because its not relevant to Naomi Wolf or any claims she made Softlemonades (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"or any claims she made"? -- Wolf made the claim that Assange was accused with no substance, and Wolf has been proven correct. This certainly is to Wolf's credit and related to her claim. Please return what you have removed. Forkhume (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

and Wolf has been proven correct. She was not proven correct. The case allegations werent dropped, the investigation was closed because Assange wasnt available. The prosecutors even made a statement at the time saying the complainants were credible. Softlemonades (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of birth date

This edit removed Wolf's birth date, and thus age. It seems weird to me. Especially having a bio of a notable public figure which does not have so much as her age. -- M.boli (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This removal is asinine and the result of misplaced and authoritarian cultural puritanism and correctness. Forkhume (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ali G show appearance

Wolf appeared on the Ali G show, a show with the actor Sascha Baron Cohen portraying himself as a hip hop figure who purportedly seeks to broadcast information to his audience, unbeknownst to his interviewee that it is all a farce. Wolf fell for Ali G's schtick in a discussion about feminism, where Ali G checked every box on the list of "how to insult a feminist." Wolf did behave with grace in light of Ali G's behavior. This is probably the main reason anyone has ever heard of Wolf. 24.184.235.195 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf has been publicly known far longer than the interview. Why do you think Ali G selected her to interview? What is the year of the interview? Forkhume (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Book review - Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love

This section is so vacuously written that it casts a negative light on the probable group of people who have taken on the task to curate Naomi Wolf's Wiki entry.

There is no review or explanation of this book, and what ideas it contains or theories that it may propose. No exposition of her thesis either! What is this book about?

All we read is about some factual errors in the book, and how that casts aspersions on everything Wolf does, writes, or touches. Clearly that is the intention. Show me one thesis or one book that I can't find a number of factual errors by using Google search. This section appears as a hit piece. Her real crime is that she seems to question the dominant established narratives and that she has remained a dissident and anti-establishment rebel, and instead of succumbing and submitting to the new elitist cultural order and ideology, she actually challenges them. There is the putrid air of intellectual cancellation in the air.

This section is reporting the controversy surrounding this book without the context and without reporting the substance of the work. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Forkhume (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It is courteous assume good faith on behalf of your fellow editors.

Detailed review of the contents is somewhat beside the point in a bio. Moreover, the publisher pulled the book in its main market, so most people couldn't read it if they wanted to. Naturally the major press focus was how the factual errors in the text reflected on Wolf's scholarship. Lashing out at the editors of the article will not change that. Nangaf (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The "Not to be Confused with …" hatnote is a joke

The "Not to be Confused with Naomi Klein" hatnote is a joke, and does not belong in this article. Sure, some people allegedly confused the two on Twitter (the premise of Klein's 2023 book), but that does not justify the inclusion of that tag: it probably does justify a sentence somewhere in the body of the article, which exists. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (who reverted my addition) and Shankarsivarajan. This may be a joke to those of us who know the difference, but as I have now outlined more fully in this section about her new book, there has been enough ongoing confusion "for over a decade" (her words) to inspire the author to do massive research and then write a whole book because of this confusion. Please reinstate the hatnote. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it is a joke, and I don't think Klein does either. Klein says people confuse her with Wolf, and that they have for a long time. I'm just not aware of anyone else that thinks so. Not that I doubt Klein's experience, just that it's one person's experience. I think both the hatnote, and the wiki-voice statement you added ("writer who is often mistaken") are too much. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

But the fact is that readers of Wikipedia may well be confusing the two, and our aim is to help them find the right article. I have come across the confusion myself in conversation with others (in Australia). The quote is possibly a bit on the long side, but I think it's important to explain the origin of the title, and what led her to write it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you imagine that this hypothetical person looking for an article about Naomi Wolf ends up on the article about Klein (or vice versa)? Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A person who is trying to remember that feminist, Jewish author who wrote several popular books, and cultural criticism. She's in her 50's... Naomi ...something. Wolf? DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. If that "may well be" firms up into more of a "probably are", I'd support a hatnote. The downsides include added confusion ("why would i be looking for this other person?") and visual noise in some prime real estate. The quote I think you're talking about is in the other article. For this article, would you be ok with changing the first sentence to start with "Author Naomi Klein says she is often confused with Wolf; this confusion is ..." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is simply no reason not to put the disambiguation on the Klein page. Possibly an argument here on the Wolf page, that it creates an association out of thin air, but that ship has sailed. Really time to drop the stick. Put it back. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are arguments, but I take it you disagree with them. Let's see how the next few folks to show up feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not err on the side of helpfulness? It doesn't cost anything, and the justification is in the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We're both pro-helpfulness! We haven't agreed on the most helpful move to make for the hatnote. Thoughts on the body text change? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the removal of the hatnote. Including it should be the default position. Please stop edit waring and put it back while you continue this crusade.

The only arguments I have seen here for removing the hatnote are 1) It's a joke (not an argument) 2) "visual noise" (what policy or MOS are you refering to?) 3) added confusion (the entire point of disambiguation is to disambiguate. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Including it should be the default position"

???

"edit waring"

???

WP:HATNOTE itself emphasizes that there are downsides to their use: "As hatnotes separate the reader from the content they are looking for, hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible" and later "There should be as few hatnotes as possible." In WP:HATCONFUSE, we're guided to use templates like the one under dispute when a "significant portion of the readership" might confuse the topics. That's what this debate should be coming down to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The question isn't can hatnotes be misused? You are making a specific claim. What is it? You don't think a significant portion of the readership will be confused? I was confused. There's a whole book about the confusion. Klein was invited to attend events that were meant to be for Wolf. That's the evidence for keeping the hatnote. We have WP:RS and Notability. What's the evidence for removing it? You're just not feeling the vibe? I will say it again. please put the hatnote back until you can establish consensus for its removal. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

All of that are certainly good reasons for mentioning the confusion in the article, not the hatnote. The hatnote disambiguates confusable articles, not confusable people. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The hatnote saves the time of readers who are on the wrong page. Unless you want to put the clarification in the lead, which would NOT be WP:DUE on Wolf's page, you are expecting the reader to go 6 headings down to figure it out? DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I just realised that I meant to reply on Naomi Klein talk page... However, my point is about being helpful to wiki users. What about using a text hatnote along the lines of "sometimes confused with Canadian author and social activist/American author and conspiracy theorist" on each? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what was originally there. It was fine and supported by consensus. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence for this "supported by consensus" claim. That it was what was there before I removed it isn't evidence. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are not following WP:BRD and gaming the system by having the page the way you want it while engaging in an unofficial RfC. Please put the hatnote back and we can continue the discussion. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why is your favored version to be the default then? I won't remove it again without discussion/consensus, but if you want it back, put it in yourself. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The downsides include added confusion ("why would i be looking for this other person?") I confuse them because of the hat note Softlem (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't think Klein's claim about the confusion was a joke. I (perhaps erroneously) believed that the hatnote was added as a joke. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I've experienced this confusion at least twice before (and why I ended up on this page in the first place), and support use of a brief hatnote -- no other mention in lead needed. Here's some examples of this confusion in the wild: [1] (in the comments), "I made this same mistake last May...", [2], [3], [4], [5]. Presumably Klein's Doppelganger has some better examples. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've already stated my opinion, but just wanted to add especially that for non-North Americans, the similarities between the two women are more pronounced - relatively uncommon given names, ages, hair, etc.; both started their careers writing on kind of social activist themes; and both have "American accents" . And once confused, the name confusion can often continue to be repeated in certain circles. So while it may seem silly to confuse them, the fact is that they have been and continue to be confused, so I think a hatnote is helpful. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I support keeping the note, for the reason stated above that they are confused often enough for one of them to have written extensively about it. cagliost (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

Change "Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American feminist author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist. After the 1991 publication of her first book, The Beauty Myth, Wolf became a leading spokeswoman of what has been called the third wave of the feminist movement..." to "Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American conservative author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist. After the 1991 publication of her first book, The Beauty Myth, Wolf became a spokeswoman of what has been called the third wave of the feminist movement. Wolf currently embraces far-right extremism and no longer embodies intersectional feminism."

(This is not the edit, just an explanation) Naomi Wolf currently aligns with American conservatism. She has co-authored work with Steve Bannon, she spreads mis/dis-information and has rebranded her political alliances. This by no means justifies how she has been attacked online, but it should be named early on her wiki page that she is no longer this figurehead for third-wave feminism. Rahomie (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thickynugnug (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Naomi is not a feminist author but a conspiracy theorist. 2600:1011:B18F:84D9:9578:326:FA46:F6B1 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

— Urro^{[talk][edits]}

17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)