This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
partial cross post from
Talk:feminism
Fat feminism and
Amazon feminism are full of original research and Amazon feminism might have plagiarism issues. If anyone can help with these articles please do. I am thoroughly uncertain of Amazon and Fat feminism's notability - at the moment they almost look like hoax articles due to the serious amount of OR on those pages. I'm going to give them 3 weeks to improve - if they can't be sourced and rationalized by then we'll have to send them to
AfD--
Cailil
talk
13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This WikiProject seems to express gender neutral aims. However, its "to do" list seems to betray bias. Why do most if not all of the articles to "expand" deal with women or women's issues, and most if not all of the articles to "review" deal with men or men's issues? Put another way, is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors? Is the anti-feminist position welcome here? Would an editor having an opinion that most Wikipedia articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, with women possibly being overrepresented as editors, be welcome in this WikiProject? Thanks for any response. Blackworm ( talk) 07:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record I'm a man and I my work in gender studies has mostly been about masculinities - I wish there was a greater interest on wikipedia in improving masculinities related pages. I think Jehochman's suggestion to merge the lists into a single to do is an excellent idea. This project has not been about us and them and the list should reflect that-- Cailil talk 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be most productive if we focus on thinking about which articles need improvement and in what ways. This thread is straying from the main purpose of this talk page, and perhaps some of these comments need to be moved to personal talk pages. I'm not saying that anyone's concerns are unimportant, just that this talk page is for discussing the projecting not "who said what" futurebird ( talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, some of this is just a matter of fact. Males are over-represented in biographies, for example take a look at this: Let's do a survey right now. Pick a random date such as ... January 21 count the number of men and women mentioned on the page. Of the 86 people listed as being born on Jan. 21, 14 are women, that's about 16 percent. I used births since the deaths listed have even fewer women. Now you try. Pick ANY date you like, the result will be similar. Is that normal? futurebird ( talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And , Blackworm, unless you're a woman I'm the only woman in this conversation judging by the usernames... And I'm not even that active in this project. In general, most wiki editors are men. Not that I think it's impossible for us to have a fair 'pedia with the imbalance... but, I just don't know what you're talking about when you say: "would a gender imbalance among editors in this project create "systematic gender bias" in the articles primarily edited by the members of this Project" ? futurebird ( talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(Outdenting.) After waiting 24 hours for a response here, I edited the project page to conform to what I thought might be a consensus, with the edit summary, "I don't understand the sudden silence in Talk, I'll interpret this at present as a possible consensus. If not, plz revert & discuss in Talk, addressing my last post addressed to you if applicable."
This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that "males are over-represented on Wikipedia" is a "reasonable estimate." I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified [ here]. I would appreciate if Edgarde or another editor could address this apparent contradiction or provide sources to back up the claim of a "reasonable estimate." Thank you. Blackworm ( talk) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, I'm afraid you are doing the same thing here. You wrote abovePhyesalis asked me to review the continuing exchange here, as a neutral third party, and I can see why they were getting frustrated. Blackworm, in my opinion you're not coming from a firmly steadfast position. You might've been at first, but as the exchange has continued it looks like you've been subtly shifting your weight to remain at odds with what's being said. As though you're not interested in reaching a compromise, just being "against" what Phyesalis is saying.
Yet now you say "I'm not claiming the source I provided proves anything".This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that "males are over-represented on Wikipedia" is a "reasonable estimate." I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified [here].
Would it be fair to say that consensus here is against changing the project overview?-- Cailil talk 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been talk of forming a feminism portal over on Talk:Feminism#Feminism Portal. Amidst this talk, it has been suggested that the project be located within the Gender studies project. There seem to be a number of ways to handle this. I've suggested creating Portal:Feminism within the Portal:Gender studies (mirroring Portal:Human rights as the sub-portal of Portal:Law). But first it seems there needs to be a GS portal. Thoughts? Phyesalis ( talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created a portal for Gender studies and Grrrlriot created Portal:Feminism - anyone care to contribute, check it out, and/or offer suggestions or criticisms? Thanks! -- Phyesalis ( talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy has different subprojects/task forces, such as [ this]. I was wondering if WP:GS is planning on doing the same in the future or if someone would have to make a page(s) for the different subproject(s)? If so, I would like feminism to be a subproject of this wikiproject or feminism could be a task force of this wikiproject. Does this sound like a good idea? I want more opinions. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) If you're thinking of a task force you could open-up a sub-page of this project or of Portal:feminism. That would seem logical place to put it to me. And yeah I'd be interested in working on it. I would caution one thing though - you've both seen how some users react to this project, unfortunately I have seen the same objections raised again and again on WP in realation to issues that some people don't like. There is and has been a deliberate measure taken by this project (which was original created as WikiProject Feminism) to be neutral and to be seen to be neutral. A feminism (only) task force will unfortunately attract as much and more objections as this project has done. Before you embark on this ask a) could this be covered by this project's talk page or b) by the "Things to do" section of the portal. Once again this idea has my broad support but you need to go into this with your eyes open (and maybe even expecting to have your heart broken by objectors)-- Cailil talk 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm responding to the notice board about the Feminism article. I agree, It is mainly composed of stubs. I think the stubs could be new articles that could be created. As for changing the article to "feminisms", I think there should be a new article about "feminisms", since many different kinds are discussed on the feminism article. -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've posted award requests over at User:The Transhumanist/Award Center for improvements to Portal:Gender studies and for new articles on non-Christian feminist theologians, particularly Riffat Hassan. I'm thinking this might be a good idea for a project task - post a few reward offers regularly, help attract new blood, promote collaboration and article improvement. Thoughts? -- Phyesalis ( talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've added Gender-bait to this project's listing (tagged the talkpage). There are some questions about the appropriate/best term or title for this behavior, that I've asked at the talkpage. I'd welcome any feedback, information, or insight. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that this article seems to be written from a Conservative Islamist perspective, and that something should be done. -- Lionheart Omega ( talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The to do list has been restarted. Everything on there was over a year old and as stated above gave an impression of polarization. Inline with WP:TODO this page is now using {{ todo}} properly. Old posts to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies/to do have been archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Archive_4#Archives_from_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies.2Fto_do]. I'm removing the 'To Do List' link from the Nav Box as editors will see it here and be able to review/edit it from this page-- Cailil talk 00:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Just advising of the creation of this new category, if any one wants to fill it up or refine it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs ( talk) 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I created this article, because when I searched for her on Wikipedia, I got a different person and I was a bit confused. Mainly to avoid confusing people, I created disambiguation pages and a stub. Then I realized that I'm not really so interested in developing that article... Since it seems she has made important contributions to gender studies, I was hoping that maybe someone here would be interested in adopting her bio. Thanks, Merzul ( talk) 09:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I made her an article yesterday just because she was a red link on Fasting girls. I'd not heard of her before. I just mentioned a bit, then I had to go out, but I think there's loads to be written about this person and her work. It's not just girls- she's written about boys too. So I hope one of you will feel like chipping in on the article.:) Merkin's mum 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone from the project take a look at List of genders? I don't know much about gender studies but it still strikes me as very very weird to consider aunt, dad or dude as genders. Clearly the list is in dire need of context because most people understand the term "gender" as meaning either male or female. But even taking the more general gender-studies meaning, the list is puzzling. Perhaps the list can be renamed as list of sexual identities or something like that, though it's still unclear why monk (!), brother or girlfriend should appear in the list. If this can't be put in proper context, I'll submit the article to AfD in a few days. Thanks, Pichpich ( talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This declaration may be of interest to the project. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some input from memebers of this Project on the masculine disambiguation page, part of which was recently changed from "Masculinity [is] a traditionally male gender role" to "Masculine normally refers to positive qualities associated with men". I feel fairly sure that it's often used in a negative or neutral manner, particularly but by no means exclusively when referring to masculine women. However, I don't really have much experience with the gender studies literature, so I'd be very appreciative of anyone who could come and confirm or deny my belief and point out some references. Thanks! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
References and dictionary definitions have no place on disambig pages. I'm part of that project, too.
WP:DAB#What not to include -- I've cleaned up the page, and left a warning. -
Yamara
✉
22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This article, with the exception of one sentence, lacks information on any religions other than Judaism and Christianity. Can people knowledgable about other religions help expand it? Thanks, -- Alynna ( talk) 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted to WikiProject Religion)
(reposted from Portal_talk:Feminism)
Essentially, variations on Gender equality had been hijacked six or so months ago by redirects to both Zygarchy and Equalism, and had actually begun to affect the conversation across the internet.
This is bad news, as these terms have nothing behind them but ill-defined assertions. I've rarely been embarrassed for Wikipedia, but this is one of those moments where the site's power was left in the hands of POV/OR mischief-makers.
"Zygarchy" is a made-up word that would never meet the WP:NEO standard if anyone had caught it. It has never meant "rule of two genders" before someone asserted it on Wikipedia. There are a couple hundred blogs out there crowing about the "new word they'd learned" while learning less than zero about notable, verifiable internationally-established gender policy. (Somewhat ominously, "zygarchy" is an obscure but genuine term for an ancient military formation involving two chariots. I think the chariots were used to run infantry over... or to cut them down with a chain between them...)
"Equalism" has been used by notable sources and scholars-- but never consistently. There was some effort to use it to refer to communism in the fifties, anarchism at various points, and some among the Facebook crowd seem to like it better than "feminism"; one news citation in Sweden counts it as a subset of feminism. That is to say, it's a semantic game: There is no " -ism" there, just a desire for one, a moving target without a developed philosophy behind it. I've redirected it to a far more notable article, Egalitarianism.
Nearly every instance of a wikilink to Gender equality had been piped to Equalism. That's what last night was all about for me: finding and removing the plumbing from this phantasm.
I've reestablished the Gender equality article with cites to the UN and an external link to the World Bank. I've added it to the various gender studies and feminism templates. This is one of this project's central concepts, and we really have to watch these pages. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the creation of the feminism task force I've been looking at the project's use of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/translation, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Collaboration and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Notice_Board. Or rather our lack of use for them - I think it's time to delete them.
Also I've marked Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias as {{ historical}} - it was put there until a separate project was established - but nothing ever happened - it may no longer be necessary-- Cailil talk 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is related to the above but slightly divergent (hence the separate sub-section). I'd like to suggest we consider changing the project's Overview to something like:
This project is for editors with knowledge or an interest in gender studies and who want to help improve articles about the topic. All that's required to join is an understanding of wikipedia's core principles and an interest in improving and collaborating on articles within this project's scope.
Any thoughts?-- Cailil talk 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
One would expect that given this 'statistic' ( half-truth, you would find an anti-female opinion. In fact many threads have the opposite, suggesting the assumption that 'males' are pro-male, or anti-female is incorrect.
Evidence in www.wikipedia.com relating to correcting an anti-male bias has resulted in some cases of 'men' or so they say they are defending the anti-male perspective.
The isolation of gender only as a valid logical parameter is only part of the story.
We should be careful in jumping to conclusions and or using generalized black and white logic to make conclusions.
Criticism of Criticism
This is a classic example of a paradox, and shallow reasoning or flawed logic. (Truth can lie)
(my mistake I had thought it was originally posted on a talk page)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Judith Butler and Talk:Influence of Judith Butler's concepts. Thanks! Hyacinth ( talk) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've found that women are statistically less well-represented in Wikipedia than they are in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I've put a list of women prominent in ODNB but lacking a Wikipedia page on my userpage. Dsp13 ( talk) 11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Gender and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with several other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 782 articles are assigned to this project, of which 338, or 43.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
per the "women in politics" category... I'm going to try and work on it as well, but Mireya Moscoso, about Panama's first female president, could use some serious BLP/NPOV/referencing love. Most of the article is currently taken up with corruption allegations; what else did she do? -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See newly generated cleanup listing for this project, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Cleanup listing. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
" Harriet Taylor Mill ... was a philosopher and women's rights advocate. She was an original member of the Kensington Society that produced the first petition requesting votes for women." -- The Kensington Society sounds like an interesting subject but is currently a redlink. Can anybody start a stub on this? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it time to archive this page? The oldest comments are over a year old. Better yet, can we get a bot archiving old discussions (the LGBT project has something like that)? -- Alynna ( talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Transgender portal needs some content added. There's some there now, but not as much as there should be.
(Cross-posted to the LGBT Studies wikiproject.) -- Alynna ( talk) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Was a requested article. Just thought I'd let you know it's here now in case any of you feel like expanding on it. Sticky Parkin 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, the article on Margaret Fuller is a candidate for featured article. Feel free to comment here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Fuller. Thanks. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This article could stand to have a few more eyes on it. I completely re-did the article. The talk page has comments by disappointed people looking for the history of women's rights in Iran, and this article fell far, far short. It was factually incorrect not only to its past history, but to the current state. There is no Women's rights in Iran article (although there is an LGBT rights in Iran), and the apparent idea behind keeping this article circumcised is that it was about women's achievements made by women, which is more than silly given that in a male-dominated society such as Iran, few women achieve rights simply on their own. That contention is also not backed by the fact it asserted women were liberated from their homes by Ayatollah Khomeini; in fact, women protested the Khomeini government from the outset. Important gains made under the shah were not only neglected, but seemingly non-existent. I heavily sourced the article and re-wrote it. It certainly could use more work; I think an article on Achievements of Iranian women is merited, but this article certainly is not it. Indeed, it should probably be moved to Women's rights in Iran. Could stand some gender equality-minded folks looking at it. --David Shankbone 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 04:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I added the tag for this project to this article today. Kinda thought y'all might be interested in it. Hell, I might be interested in it... -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
We're having a discussion involving very divided views on wikipolicy on this page and need input from this project. Thanks, Wrad ( talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if an administrator with this WikiProject can help us with with what seems to be an impasse regarding the Category:Female wartime crossdressers. [4]. A user who started the category has put up a lengthy explanation for what constitutes eligability for the category, and excludes Joan of Arc from it on the basis of this text that she wrote, despite the fact that Joan fits as far as the title goes. (And as far as the linked sister list of wartime crossdressers is concerned.) I'm not aware of any allowance for categories to be for something other than exactly what the title says they're for, and and am doubly certain that articles which fit oughtn't be excluded. I think that if the category is about passing (gender) and not crossdressing the title must be changed to reflect that. Or that the notice must be removed and Joan and the few others who qualify under the existing title must be permitted as well. I prefer the latter, being less disruptive, but would support the former if consensus leans toward favoring precision. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
partial cross post from
Talk:feminism
Fat feminism and
Amazon feminism are full of original research and Amazon feminism might have plagiarism issues. If anyone can help with these articles please do. I am thoroughly uncertain of Amazon and Fat feminism's notability - at the moment they almost look like hoax articles due to the serious amount of OR on those pages. I'm going to give them 3 weeks to improve - if they can't be sourced and rationalized by then we'll have to send them to
AfD--
Cailil
talk
13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This WikiProject seems to express gender neutral aims. However, its "to do" list seems to betray bias. Why do most if not all of the articles to "expand" deal with women or women's issues, and most if not all of the articles to "review" deal with men or men's issues? Put another way, is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors? Is the anti-feminist position welcome here? Would an editor having an opinion that most Wikipedia articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, with women possibly being overrepresented as editors, be welcome in this WikiProject? Thanks for any response. Blackworm ( talk) 07:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record I'm a man and I my work in gender studies has mostly been about masculinities - I wish there was a greater interest on wikipedia in improving masculinities related pages. I think Jehochman's suggestion to merge the lists into a single to do is an excellent idea. This project has not been about us and them and the list should reflect that-- Cailil talk 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be most productive if we focus on thinking about which articles need improvement and in what ways. This thread is straying from the main purpose of this talk page, and perhaps some of these comments need to be moved to personal talk pages. I'm not saying that anyone's concerns are unimportant, just that this talk page is for discussing the projecting not "who said what" futurebird ( talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, some of this is just a matter of fact. Males are over-represented in biographies, for example take a look at this: Let's do a survey right now. Pick a random date such as ... January 21 count the number of men and women mentioned on the page. Of the 86 people listed as being born on Jan. 21, 14 are women, that's about 16 percent. I used births since the deaths listed have even fewer women. Now you try. Pick ANY date you like, the result will be similar. Is that normal? futurebird ( talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And , Blackworm, unless you're a woman I'm the only woman in this conversation judging by the usernames... And I'm not even that active in this project. In general, most wiki editors are men. Not that I think it's impossible for us to have a fair 'pedia with the imbalance... but, I just don't know what you're talking about when you say: "would a gender imbalance among editors in this project create "systematic gender bias" in the articles primarily edited by the members of this Project" ? futurebird ( talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(Outdenting.) After waiting 24 hours for a response here, I edited the project page to conform to what I thought might be a consensus, with the edit summary, "I don't understand the sudden silence in Talk, I'll interpret this at present as a possible consensus. If not, plz revert & discuss in Talk, addressing my last post addressed to you if applicable."
This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that "males are over-represented on Wikipedia" is a "reasonable estimate." I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified [ here]. I would appreciate if Edgarde or another editor could address this apparent contradiction or provide sources to back up the claim of a "reasonable estimate." Thank you. Blackworm ( talk) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, I'm afraid you are doing the same thing here. You wrote abovePhyesalis asked me to review the continuing exchange here, as a neutral third party, and I can see why they were getting frustrated. Blackworm, in my opinion you're not coming from a firmly steadfast position. You might've been at first, but as the exchange has continued it looks like you've been subtly shifting your weight to remain at odds with what's being said. As though you're not interested in reaching a compromise, just being "against" what Phyesalis is saying.
Yet now you say "I'm not claiming the source I provided proves anything".This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that "males are over-represented on Wikipedia" is a "reasonable estimate." I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified [here].
Would it be fair to say that consensus here is against changing the project overview?-- Cailil talk 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been talk of forming a feminism portal over on Talk:Feminism#Feminism Portal. Amidst this talk, it has been suggested that the project be located within the Gender studies project. There seem to be a number of ways to handle this. I've suggested creating Portal:Feminism within the Portal:Gender studies (mirroring Portal:Human rights as the sub-portal of Portal:Law). But first it seems there needs to be a GS portal. Thoughts? Phyesalis ( talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created a portal for Gender studies and Grrrlriot created Portal:Feminism - anyone care to contribute, check it out, and/or offer suggestions or criticisms? Thanks! -- Phyesalis ( talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy has different subprojects/task forces, such as [ this]. I was wondering if WP:GS is planning on doing the same in the future or if someone would have to make a page(s) for the different subproject(s)? If so, I would like feminism to be a subproject of this wikiproject or feminism could be a task force of this wikiproject. Does this sound like a good idea? I want more opinions. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) If you're thinking of a task force you could open-up a sub-page of this project or of Portal:feminism. That would seem logical place to put it to me. And yeah I'd be interested in working on it. I would caution one thing though - you've both seen how some users react to this project, unfortunately I have seen the same objections raised again and again on WP in realation to issues that some people don't like. There is and has been a deliberate measure taken by this project (which was original created as WikiProject Feminism) to be neutral and to be seen to be neutral. A feminism (only) task force will unfortunately attract as much and more objections as this project has done. Before you embark on this ask a) could this be covered by this project's talk page or b) by the "Things to do" section of the portal. Once again this idea has my broad support but you need to go into this with your eyes open (and maybe even expecting to have your heart broken by objectors)-- Cailil talk 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm responding to the notice board about the Feminism article. I agree, It is mainly composed of stubs. I think the stubs could be new articles that could be created. As for changing the article to "feminisms", I think there should be a new article about "feminisms", since many different kinds are discussed on the feminism article. -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've posted award requests over at User:The Transhumanist/Award Center for improvements to Portal:Gender studies and for new articles on non-Christian feminist theologians, particularly Riffat Hassan. I'm thinking this might be a good idea for a project task - post a few reward offers regularly, help attract new blood, promote collaboration and article improvement. Thoughts? -- Phyesalis ( talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've added Gender-bait to this project's listing (tagged the talkpage). There are some questions about the appropriate/best term or title for this behavior, that I've asked at the talkpage. I'd welcome any feedback, information, or insight. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that this article seems to be written from a Conservative Islamist perspective, and that something should be done. -- Lionheart Omega ( talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The to do list has been restarted. Everything on there was over a year old and as stated above gave an impression of polarization. Inline with WP:TODO this page is now using {{ todo}} properly. Old posts to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies/to do have been archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Archive_4#Archives_from_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies.2Fto_do]. I'm removing the 'To Do List' link from the Nav Box as editors will see it here and be able to review/edit it from this page-- Cailil talk 00:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Just advising of the creation of this new category, if any one wants to fill it up or refine it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs ( talk) 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I created this article, because when I searched for her on Wikipedia, I got a different person and I was a bit confused. Mainly to avoid confusing people, I created disambiguation pages and a stub. Then I realized that I'm not really so interested in developing that article... Since it seems she has made important contributions to gender studies, I was hoping that maybe someone here would be interested in adopting her bio. Thanks, Merzul ( talk) 09:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I made her an article yesterday just because she was a red link on Fasting girls. I'd not heard of her before. I just mentioned a bit, then I had to go out, but I think there's loads to be written about this person and her work. It's not just girls- she's written about boys too. So I hope one of you will feel like chipping in on the article.:) Merkin's mum 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone from the project take a look at List of genders? I don't know much about gender studies but it still strikes me as very very weird to consider aunt, dad or dude as genders. Clearly the list is in dire need of context because most people understand the term "gender" as meaning either male or female. But even taking the more general gender-studies meaning, the list is puzzling. Perhaps the list can be renamed as list of sexual identities or something like that, though it's still unclear why monk (!), brother or girlfriend should appear in the list. If this can't be put in proper context, I'll submit the article to AfD in a few days. Thanks, Pichpich ( talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This declaration may be of interest to the project. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some input from memebers of this Project on the masculine disambiguation page, part of which was recently changed from "Masculinity [is] a traditionally male gender role" to "Masculine normally refers to positive qualities associated with men". I feel fairly sure that it's often used in a negative or neutral manner, particularly but by no means exclusively when referring to masculine women. However, I don't really have much experience with the gender studies literature, so I'd be very appreciative of anyone who could come and confirm or deny my belief and point out some references. Thanks! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
References and dictionary definitions have no place on disambig pages. I'm part of that project, too.
WP:DAB#What not to include -- I've cleaned up the page, and left a warning. -
Yamara
✉
22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This article, with the exception of one sentence, lacks information on any religions other than Judaism and Christianity. Can people knowledgable about other religions help expand it? Thanks, -- Alynna ( talk) 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted to WikiProject Religion)
(reposted from Portal_talk:Feminism)
Essentially, variations on Gender equality had been hijacked six or so months ago by redirects to both Zygarchy and Equalism, and had actually begun to affect the conversation across the internet.
This is bad news, as these terms have nothing behind them but ill-defined assertions. I've rarely been embarrassed for Wikipedia, but this is one of those moments where the site's power was left in the hands of POV/OR mischief-makers.
"Zygarchy" is a made-up word that would never meet the WP:NEO standard if anyone had caught it. It has never meant "rule of two genders" before someone asserted it on Wikipedia. There are a couple hundred blogs out there crowing about the "new word they'd learned" while learning less than zero about notable, verifiable internationally-established gender policy. (Somewhat ominously, "zygarchy" is an obscure but genuine term for an ancient military formation involving two chariots. I think the chariots were used to run infantry over... or to cut them down with a chain between them...)
"Equalism" has been used by notable sources and scholars-- but never consistently. There was some effort to use it to refer to communism in the fifties, anarchism at various points, and some among the Facebook crowd seem to like it better than "feminism"; one news citation in Sweden counts it as a subset of feminism. That is to say, it's a semantic game: There is no " -ism" there, just a desire for one, a moving target without a developed philosophy behind it. I've redirected it to a far more notable article, Egalitarianism.
Nearly every instance of a wikilink to Gender equality had been piped to Equalism. That's what last night was all about for me: finding and removing the plumbing from this phantasm.
I've reestablished the Gender equality article with cites to the UN and an external link to the World Bank. I've added it to the various gender studies and feminism templates. This is one of this project's central concepts, and we really have to watch these pages. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the creation of the feminism task force I've been looking at the project's use of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/translation, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Collaboration and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Notice_Board. Or rather our lack of use for them - I think it's time to delete them.
Also I've marked Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias as {{ historical}} - it was put there until a separate project was established - but nothing ever happened - it may no longer be necessary-- Cailil talk 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is related to the above but slightly divergent (hence the separate sub-section). I'd like to suggest we consider changing the project's Overview to something like:
This project is for editors with knowledge or an interest in gender studies and who want to help improve articles about the topic. All that's required to join is an understanding of wikipedia's core principles and an interest in improving and collaborating on articles within this project's scope.
Any thoughts?-- Cailil talk 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
One would expect that given this 'statistic' ( half-truth, you would find an anti-female opinion. In fact many threads have the opposite, suggesting the assumption that 'males' are pro-male, or anti-female is incorrect.
Evidence in www.wikipedia.com relating to correcting an anti-male bias has resulted in some cases of 'men' or so they say they are defending the anti-male perspective.
The isolation of gender only as a valid logical parameter is only part of the story.
We should be careful in jumping to conclusions and or using generalized black and white logic to make conclusions.
Criticism of Criticism
This is a classic example of a paradox, and shallow reasoning or flawed logic. (Truth can lie)
(my mistake I had thought it was originally posted on a talk page)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Judith Butler and Talk:Influence of Judith Butler's concepts. Thanks! Hyacinth ( talk) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've found that women are statistically less well-represented in Wikipedia than they are in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I've put a list of women prominent in ODNB but lacking a Wikipedia page on my userpage. Dsp13 ( talk) 11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Gender and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with several other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 782 articles are assigned to this project, of which 338, or 43.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
per the "women in politics" category... I'm going to try and work on it as well, but Mireya Moscoso, about Panama's first female president, could use some serious BLP/NPOV/referencing love. Most of the article is currently taken up with corruption allegations; what else did she do? -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See newly generated cleanup listing for this project, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Cleanup listing. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
" Harriet Taylor Mill ... was a philosopher and women's rights advocate. She was an original member of the Kensington Society that produced the first petition requesting votes for women." -- The Kensington Society sounds like an interesting subject but is currently a redlink. Can anybody start a stub on this? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it time to archive this page? The oldest comments are over a year old. Better yet, can we get a bot archiving old discussions (the LGBT project has something like that)? -- Alynna ( talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Transgender portal needs some content added. There's some there now, but not as much as there should be.
(Cross-posted to the LGBT Studies wikiproject.) -- Alynna ( talk) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Was a requested article. Just thought I'd let you know it's here now in case any of you feel like expanding on it. Sticky Parkin 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, the article on Margaret Fuller is a candidate for featured article. Feel free to comment here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Fuller. Thanks. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This article could stand to have a few more eyes on it. I completely re-did the article. The talk page has comments by disappointed people looking for the history of women's rights in Iran, and this article fell far, far short. It was factually incorrect not only to its past history, but to the current state. There is no Women's rights in Iran article (although there is an LGBT rights in Iran), and the apparent idea behind keeping this article circumcised is that it was about women's achievements made by women, which is more than silly given that in a male-dominated society such as Iran, few women achieve rights simply on their own. That contention is also not backed by the fact it asserted women were liberated from their homes by Ayatollah Khomeini; in fact, women protested the Khomeini government from the outset. Important gains made under the shah were not only neglected, but seemingly non-existent. I heavily sourced the article and re-wrote it. It certainly could use more work; I think an article on Achievements of Iranian women is merited, but this article certainly is not it. Indeed, it should probably be moved to Women's rights in Iran. Could stand some gender equality-minded folks looking at it. --David Shankbone 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 04:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I added the tag for this project to this article today. Kinda thought y'all might be interested in it. Hell, I might be interested in it... -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
We're having a discussion involving very divided views on wikipolicy on this page and need input from this project. Thanks, Wrad ( talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if an administrator with this WikiProject can help us with with what seems to be an impasse regarding the Category:Female wartime crossdressers. [4]. A user who started the category has put up a lengthy explanation for what constitutes eligability for the category, and excludes Joan of Arc from it on the basis of this text that she wrote, despite the fact that Joan fits as far as the title goes. (And as far as the linked sister list of wartime crossdressers is concerned.) I'm not aware of any allowance for categories to be for something other than exactly what the title says they're for, and and am doubly certain that articles which fit oughtn't be excluded. I think that if the category is about passing (gender) and not crossdressing the title must be changed to reflect that. Or that the notice must be removed and Joan and the few others who qualify under the existing title must be permitted as well. I prefer the latter, being less disruptive, but would support the former if consensus leans toward favoring precision. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)