Talk:Intersectionality

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intersectionality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gender studies Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

Low

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

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Triple oppression on 14 October 2018. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was No consensus.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Atewologun, Doyin (28 August 2018). "Intersectionality Theory and Practice". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.48. Wikipedia Library link (registration required)
Bhopal, Kalwant; Preston, John, eds. (2012). Intersectionality and "Race" in Education. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-62899-3.
Burge, Amy (2018). "Intersectionality" (PDF). In Robertson, Judy; et al. (eds.). EqualBITE: Gender Equality in Higher Education. Brill. pp. 85–88. doi:10.1163/9789463511438_016. ISBN 978-94-6351-143-8.
Collins, Patricia Hill; Bilge, Sirma (2020). Intersectionality (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ISBN 978-1-5095-3967-3.
Duran, Antonio; Jones, Susan R. (2020). "Intersectionality". In Casey, Zachary A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Critical Whiteness Studies in Education. Brill. pp. 310–320. doi:10.1163/9789004444836_041. ISBN 978-90-04-44483-6.
Falcón, Sylvanna M. (2009). "Intersectionality". In O'Brien, Jodi (ed.). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. SAGE Publications. pp. 467–469. ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7.
Hancock, Ange-Marie (2016). Intersectionality: An Intellectual History. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199370368.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-1993-7038-2. Wikipedia Library link (registration required)
Howard, Judith A.; Renfrow, Daniel G. (2014). "Intersectionality". In McLeod, Jane D.; Lawler, Edward J.; Schwalbe, Michael (eds.). Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. pp. 95–121. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4_5. ISBN 978-94-017-9002-4. Wikipedia Library link (registration required)
"Intersectionality". ScienceDirect. Elsevier. Archived from the original on 26 November 2021.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juliannamurga (article contribs). Peer reviewers: J.bust0s23.

Venn diagram

The article is illustrated with a four-set Venn diagram. From a mathematical point of view I love this diagram; too few people are aware how to show all 16 combinations of four sets in a Venn diagram! However, this is widely beside the point in this article. A three-set Venn diagram like this one would make the point just as well - and that means, it would make it far better, as far more people would be familiar with it. Nø (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, showing a Venn diagram that people are less familiar with, and is just as correct, would give them something new to take in, and therefore is better, in my opinion. Lova Falk (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Wikipedia is educational (among other things), but we should not aim at teaching a rather exotic mathematical thing is an article on a sociological subject to which it is irrelevant. What I'm describing as exotic and irrelevant is not four sets intersecting, as such, but it is representing this in a Venn diagram. It's not rocket science, you might say, but it is not well known either, even among the mathematically literate. The point the diagram is meant to make, in relation to the subject matter, is made just as clearly with a three-set Venn diagram, which will be way more familiar to a vast majority of readers. Nø (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, readers are not served by the more complex and less recognizable Venn diagram. In the worst case, the presence of a novel, colorful, abstract shape could be misinterpreted literally as an emblem/logo/symbol for the concept of intersectionality. A commonly used visual is an Euler diagram showing overlapping circles/ellipses/stadiums annotated with examples of factors of privilege/discrimination (gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, to pick five) would be helpful to readers. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 02:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a diagram with specific examples of factors could make sense, but on the other hand, the idea of intersectionality is not limited to any specific factors. For now, I'll replace the diagram with the three-set generic Venn diagram. Nø (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you have an ally. 🙂 Lova Falk (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Women in Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 8 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BlopBlop56, KitriLake (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DrResearchMethods (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Political

Hi. I noticed a problem with the Political section of the Repsonses section. It gives undue weight to critism of intersectionality. WP:NPOV. PipFowler (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fixit. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okie dokie PipFowler (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Intersectional nationalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Intersectional nationalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4#Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4 § Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo]] until a consensus is reached. I₂Overcome ^talk 02:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The Omnicause"

I am open to having a conversation about the inclusion of "Omnicause" as an alternate definition, but there are countless (left-leaning and right-leaning) sources out there that are "due." Even left-of-center sources like this one acknowledge its existence. This isn't just some fiction of mine... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The term appears to be a reactionary dogwhistle against progressive political coalitions in general, and specifically, the "paradox" of queer opposition to the Gaza genocide. The Bella Caledonia op-ed calls it a favourite phrase of the far-right. Anyway, it doesn't seem closely related to the actual concept of intersectionality.

Five opinion columns do not make a reliable secondary source (congressional testimony is particularly suspect; please review WP:PRIMARY). It's not at all clear that the term is notable or due here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 20:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, beyond the countless opinion columns (many written by editors, not columnists), the Free Press source comes from a deputy editor of theirs who is an actual journalist. Why does that not qualify as "due"?

This other source, written by a "journalist, syndicated columnist, and senior member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board," clearly connects intersectionality and the Omnicause as concepts for this page.

All of this is quite the double standard when the very same "Other forms" section introduces a concept known as "strategic intersectionality" that is traced back to just one individual from 2007, as the advisory tag notes, and yet that is not a "random factoid"? It is allowed by you all to stand as viable content while this Omnicause concept that is referenced repeatedly by various sources stands no chance? Why is the bar suddenly so much higher for a "random" named Marie-Claire Belleau as opposed to numerous perspectives who are established editors?

("Editor" in the journalistic sense, which is above a "reporter") Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "deputy editor" is merely responsible for the introduction to an op-ed by Lucy Biggers, described as "head of social media" at The Free Press. In other words, not a real journalist.

"Countless opinion columns" do not amount to a reliable source. That goes for editorial boards as well as syndicated columnists.

Due and undue weight is determined by whether something represents the predominant view among reliable, independent sources, not whether a source is right- or left-leaning. No one is saying the term "omnicause" is a fiction, but not every random factoid belongs in an encyclopedia.

"Bolster(ing) the description" with a Du Bois Review article from more than ten years ago that doesn't even use the term^[1] also looks like improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant this: "Why is the bar suddenly so much higher for numerous perspectives who are established editors as opposed to a "random" named Marie-Claire Belleau? She seems much more niche than a Free Press editor, syndicated Wall Street Journal columnist, and the list goes on. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~See WP:OTHERCONTENT. The existence of one fringe opinion in the article does not justify adding more.~~ See below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC) edited 21:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalence. One academic opinion from 2007 is not on par with countless headlines and actual reporting that clearly demonstrate the notability of this "Omnicause" term. It's also weird to run into so much opposition and source nitpicking when I'm just quickly introducing an alternate definition for intersectionality, not a whole new page. But, in any case, here are four other non-opinion sources, including three examples of reporting (the other is from a research fellow):

Reporting: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/gen-z-israel-gaza-college-protests-conversation-cf699896

Reporting: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/socialism-vs-abundance-bernie-sanders-aoc-mamdani-democrats-future.html

Reporting: https://www.deseret.com/environment/2025/11/11/sierra-club-social-justice-members-leaving/

Research fellow: https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-slush-fund-for-radical-protesters

What is the issue with these sources now, or did I clear the bar for some sort of inclusion? Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not trying to be hostile at all. I welcome these opinions and they are informative. Thanks to everyone Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources use the term intersectionality or intersectional, so citing them for an alternate definition for intersectionality (which is really a label, not a definition) is at best improper synthesis.

James B. Meigs is not a researcher, but a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a politically conservative think tank. City Journal is where they disseminate political propaganda to the media and wider public.

Most of the other sources have some conditions on their reliability at WP:RS/P. Not that it matters, because none of them are specifically about the supposed "omnicause", only using the term in passing. Several put "omnicause" in quotation marks, suggesting it's an unfamiliar neologism.

Most of the sources cited for the main points of the article are peer-reviewed scholarship, so brief mentions in news reports (let alone op-eds and political propaganda pieces) are unduly weighted here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See, now we're really nitpicking. On the hand, WP:RSP is cited as gospel, but then the justification to omit the City Journal source is purely opinion-based. There is no mention of the Manhattan Institute or City Journal there, so "disseminate political propaganda to the media and wider public" is just your personal feeling about the group while sentences like the one below are readily accepted with no mention of the fact that these are then also "political propaganda" groups:

"Additional organizations such as the National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, the Black Mamas Matter Alliance, and the Disability Justice Collective also work to center intersectionality in health justice advocacy, public policy, and community-driven research efforts."

How is this not a clear double standard when RSP can't justify the City Journal's exclusion? And again, that is just one example of a source. I shared reported stories (and there are more out there), and the Deseret News has a green light per WP:DESERET. The Intelligencer is "generally reliable" too, and yet the insinuation here is that we should all just pretend that the word "Omnicause" doesn't exist under any circumstance.

Here's a potential solution: Why don't we introduce "Omnicause" with one or two sentences as a "label" as opposed to a "definition," caveating that it is primarily referenced in right-of-center commentary? Like a preface for readers to know? Happy to work with you on a short paragraph that might work Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my opinion (which you earlier said was welcome and informative) is that City Journal lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, based on the obvious fact that it is published by a political think tank. Calling that nitpicking is merely your opinion. If you disagree, then present your reasoning and try to gain consensus. That's how this works.

WP:DESERET is listed as generally reliable for local news, with no mention of broader political coverage. WP:INTELLIGENCER says There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements.

Once again, none of these sources specifically mention the topic of intersectionality. Citing their description of the "omnicause" in this article would be a violation of WP:SYNTH & WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Claire Belleau is a law professor and member of the Royal Society of Canada who has made significant contributions to the fields of the history of legal thought, the practice of dissent and participatory justice. I don't know if the statements attributed to her represent majority scholarly opinion or not, but at first blush Belleau has a much better claim of authority than some scandal-mongering journalists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really want to get into the opinion game. I just want to volunteer a wide range of reliable sources that demonstrate the Omnicause's notability for Wikipedia, and that has already been done. Whatever we think personally, it shouldn't have a bearing here, so why get into insinuations like "scandal-mongering journalists"? Like, let's just try to be constructive?

Just curious: What do you think about creating a new, separate page for the Omnicause then? As opposed to linking it to intersectionality? That might not be a bad idea as an alternative, but open to your thoughts. Cheers Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Carbado, Devon W.; Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams; Mays, Vickie M.; Tomlinson, Barbara (2013). "Intersectionality: Mapping the Movements of a Theory". Du Bois Review. 10 (12): 303–312. doi:10.1017/S1742058X13000349. ISSN 1742-058X.

[Carbado_2013-1] Carbado, Devon W.; Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams; Mays, Vickie M.; Tomlinson, Barbara (2013). "Intersectionality: Mapping the Movements of a Theory". Du Bois Review. 10 (12): 303–312. doi:10.1017/S1742058X13000349. ISSN 1742-058X.

[1]