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 5 |
Well done, everyone, particularly Grrrlriot! This portal is really shaping up! -- Phyesalis ( talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at these 2 pages: User:Grrrlriot/to_do and User:Grrrlriot/create2. I need references and sources for ALL of them that are listed on those 2 pages. (Some aren't feminist related, but the 2nd link is feminist related.) I hope someone can help me out. If you can help me out, please post the references/sources on those 2 pages. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm reluctant to take on new commitments but occasionally have energy to help, message me on my talk page and I'll do what I can. Also I'm somewhat active with the Rescue project so if an article that is worthy and salvageable could potentially be tagged with {{ rescue}} if put up for AfD. Benji boi 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I put something on the agenda: Fat feminism and Amazon feminism. These two articles are a serious problem - I'm in the position that I think they should either be deleted or drastically reduced and merged to a section of Feminist theory in a sub-section about Body theory (the feminist uses of Bahktin, Foucault, Goffman etc). A part of me thinks the two pages in question border on hoaxes or cool ideas that cannot be properly sourced. I'd really appreciate a second, third and fourth opinion on them-- Cailil talk 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks, a worthy project would be finding citations for all the listings in this list. I've had to deal with deletion fights for couple anarchist-related lists that were only headed off by very vigilant citing. Murderbike ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the real problems I've encountered in bringing the quality of various feminism and gender studies related article up to GA is lack of pictures. I'd like to put forward an idea that any images on flickr or similar sites published either with GDFL or Creative Commons licensing should be sought for addition to the commons. Anyone who undertook this would have to get to grips with wikimedia's licensing and image policies (which is an area I know little about) so that the images don't infringe copyright and are properly described. If anyone has any knowledge of this process it would benefit the project greatly-- Cailil talk 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have extensive experience with appropriating Flickr images for Commons, so if you see a Flickr image you like that has a free license, just drop me a line or comment here and I will arrange the upload. Skomorokh 12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested a rewording of the task force's scope to depersonalize the "if you troll I will warn you". Like everything on WP this is a group effort, so if trolling occurs trolls will be warned as per normal WP procedure under WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:EQ.
I've done some other rewords. I've removed the "who support feminism" from the the clause "open to men and women". The task force has to be open to everyone regardless of their views on feminism - so anyone can join as long as they respect WP:5P. In other words so long as their purpose is to work civilly, in good faith and by consensus to improve encyclopedic content on the subject of feminism, anyone can join-- Cailil talk 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(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)
I think it would be a good idea to have feminism by countries. I noticed that a few countries already have their own feminism page. What do you think? Here is a sample of what I'm talking about: User:Grrrlriot/Sandbox -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am wanting the task force to look something like this. However, I need everyone's help making the task force useful. -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone here be interested in working on the Mary Astell article together? I would like to create a series of articles on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century feminists (I've already done Mary Wollstonecraft) and Astell is one of the most important and her article is only start class right now. Awadewit ( talk) 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Portal:Feminism/Feminism Task Force page (de-wikilinked on purpose) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force: as this is a subproject of WP:GS is should be a subpage off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, not the portal. Cirt ( talk) 17:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just today, the article on Margaret Fuller reached Good Article status. I'd like to bring it up to Featured Article soon but I was wondering if a fresh set of eyes wanted to give it a once-over, either for copy-editing or to give some feedback. Many thanks. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Greta, you are phenomenal. OK I just completely rewrote Female ejaculation - it is not perfect, but it was absolutely dreadful before (Skene's gland is worse), and completely Male Lens. That imbalance is now fixed. I am sure there are a number of other women's health articles in urgent need of attention. Are any other articles tagged yet as an example?
I then found there was not even a category for Women's health! - there is now. Maybe somebody thought Gynaecology covered it. I found a page with that title, which was woeful. I quote "Women's health refers to health issues specific to human female anatomy"! (I placed a more inclusive definition on the Category page of that title.) Michael. (not being one for anonymity I placed personal details on Talk page) Mgoodyear ( talk) 15:31, 11 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)
Do you think that the FTF page is too crowded or does it look good how it is? Does any of the sections on the page need to be rearranged or does the page look good how it is? I want your feedback. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I came across this project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Since I've noticed that, just like on email lists, males seem to make a lot more WP:attacks on me as an obvious female editor than they do on obvious male editors, I made a new section "Sexism, especially in WP:Attadk" in that project, including recommendation for a survey of women wikipedia editors -- to no response. I don't know if this is subject or "project" appropriate for this task force, but (having endured yet another gratuitous attack for something I didn't even say today), thought I'd mention it. Carol Moore 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
Portal:Feminism is now a featured portal. Great! :) Thanks everyone for making this happen! -- Grrrlriot ( ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 17:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to do a quick copyedit on my new article for Anne Dallas Dudley, I would be much obliged. Or if you're feeling ambitious, it could certainly use expansion. Kaldari ( talk) 23:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the Feminism Task Force page need a makeover or a better layout? If so, let me know what needs to be improved. If your willing to make a better layout for the task force, reply to this and I will let you do the layout. Thanks in advance! -- Grrrlriot ( ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read the article carefully, and take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domestic_discipline. Posting this notice here is somewhat off-topic, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Family_and_relationships, which lists domestic violence on the project page, seems dead. VG ☎ 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Recently I was joking that terrorism was just one more variety of bad male behavior that should be under a grand category called Category:patriarchy. Then getting serious I looked and found there is no category called patriarchy, including under Category:Feminism. There isn't even an article on "male chauvinism" - just a chauvinism article that talks as much about female as male chauvinism! I think there are enough WP:RS to justify creating Category:patriarchy and putting lots of articles under it. And a lot of articles could have short sections on why certain behavior is patriarchal - like war, terrorism, rape, etc. Any thoughts? It certainly would be a consciousness raiser for the majority of editors :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Women's Strike for Equality was recently expanded by User:JourdanM170. It needs a lot of clean-up and copy-editing though. I've fixed some of the significant problems, but it still needs help, mostly just grammar and wording fixes. (I suspect JourdanM170 is not a native English speaker.) Any help would be appreciated. Kaldari ( talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This page has been brought to my attention as a bit of a subject of concern. Any help in the article would be greatly appreciated. John Carter ( talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Heads up. The Woman's Bible has been nominated for Good Article status. If it passes, it will become our 2nd Good Article. Please help Binksternet polish this article up for the review. Kaldari ( talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
An article I made a while back, American philosophy, has developed fairly well recently. It has a section on feminism, and, since I am not an expert on the subject (and my work has yet to be revised), I was wondering if someone versed in the subject matter of feminist philosophy in America could take a look at it and possibly improve it. Expansion, revision, or even a rewrite of that section would be accepted. I think the section should be no longer than three paragraphs or so. Here is the link American philosophy#Feminism. Thank You. Best, JEN9841 ( talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see a specific place to flag CfD under your project pages? Anyway, participants in this WP may want to comment on the proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_25#Category:Feminists. AllyD ( talk) 15:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. At the suggestion of User:Binksternet, I bring to your attention the possibility of creating an article on Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols, whose name appears several times in the article on Free love, but for whom no article currently exists. I will also post this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies#Suggested article, starting resources provided, in case that should bear fruit.
I encountered the Free love article while checking for information on health educators of Mary Gove Nichols' era, having previously cited her in that context. I realised that there is much more to Gove Nichols than can be done justice by a brief mention in an article on either women's movements or health promotion (important as such mentions are). So I created a section on the Free love discussion page in which I provided some resources and comments which may facilitate creation of an article on her. I also made some comments on Binksternet's discussion page. Rather than repeat that information here, I refer you to the links where I fleshed out the argument as best I could, along with resources as found.
I note by the way an interesting 'conundrum' regarding Mary's surname, of Gove Nichols. These days I daresay it would be hyphernated to Gove-Nichols. But in her own use, she did not. Whether that reflects the style of the time (i.e. no hyphernation), or her own usage, I've not checked at time of this message, and don't have a driving urge to do so (but I probably will, dammit - although fortunately the unresolved question doesn't bug me too much just now). So how is this a 'conundrum'? Well, a reader seeing just "Gove Nichols" could not be expected to know that this is isn't a first name and surname, whereas a reader seeing Gove-Nichols would interpret this as a hyphernated surname without any effort.
So if I was writng an article on Mary S. Gove Nichols, I'd want to resolve the question of how to refer to her surname in the article, rather than just reiterating versions of her full name as I've done to date. There may be 'standardised' ways of dealing with this (but not necessarily. Phenomena have a habit of confounding human attempts at conceptualisation - a version of John D. Barrow's "Groucho Marx Effect", not to mention other paradoxes which people like Douglas Hofstader have had fun pointing out in say, Gödel, Escher, Bach). In the absence of an uncontroversially standardised way of dealing with this, I'd define my method in the lead section (e.g. "hereafter Gove-Nichols"), with a footnote to say why. From a quick look at the book Shameless: The Visionary Life of Mary Gove Nichols, it seems some writers skirt the issue by using the full name "Mary Gove Nichols" each time. Easily do-able in a book. The only problem with that in a one-page Wikipedia article, is it looks a bit clumsy, I reckon. More importantly, a reader could easily think this was her first, middle and last name, which it most certainly was not. Even more reason to explicate her name, and the use of it.
Good old 'Gove-Nichols' eh? Giving people something to think about even in something as seemingly simple as her name. Perhaps you begin to see my intrigue... Regards Wotnow ( talk) 02:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In case anyone would like to weigh in with comments or corrections, Jeannette Piccard is nominated at FAC. Piccard was the first woman in space and one of the first women to be ordained a priest. Also I am working on Simone de Beauvoir, while reading the very long biography by Dierdre Bair (this could take a while but I would like to see her article reach GA and then FA). - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If someone could assess Gita Sahgal, who has been in the news a lot this past month (feminist head of Amnesty's Gender Unit--she was just suspended), that would be great.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 02:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder whether someone from the task force would take a look at womb veil, a form of barrier contraception in the 19th-century U.S. I happened upon this term when I was researching something else in the history of gynecology, and when I found no article in Wikipedia (but a mention, to my surprise, in Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln), I spent a week researching and writing one. I learned much that was new to me about contraception during the time, and the range of attitudes toward contraception in general and toward this particular device, from "It places conception entirely under the control of the wife, to whom it naturally belongs" to "womb-veils will exterminate the descendants of the Mayflower." So I was pretty disappointed when the first response to it was from an editor who found it pointless and uninteresting and rated it as a C. I'm hoping someone with a feel for social history and women's studies might bring a different perspective. Did I utterly miss the mark with this? (I most often write articles about antiquity.) Please glance at the talk page as well. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, anyone feels like writing about the dark ages of hysterectomy and other such subjects? Plenty of female health articles could also use help btw. Richiez ( talk) 12:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The upgrade from task force to WikiProject is almost complete. I'm waiting on some category caches to update and then I'll mass migrate all the artiles. In the meantime, some of the bot services might be broken for a little while. I'm reposting the Unreferenced BLPs here, in case they accidently get removed from the project page by the bot. These need to have citations added or they will probably get deleted at some point in the future:
Kaldari ( talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment. Talk:Circumcision#Requested_move. -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The
anti-pornography movement article has become a mess: it's recently been bent into a badly-written rehash of
Feminist views on pornography, and completely erased all mention of either non-feminist or pre-1970's anti-pornography movements in the process. At the same time, I've noticed that there is quite poor coverage no coverage whatsoever of pre-1970s feminist opposition to pornography in
Feminist views on pornography.
A few moments Googling finds Militant Discourse, Strange Bedfellows: Suffragettes and Vorticists Before the War, and Crying 'the horror' of Prostitution: Elizabeth Robins's 'Where Are You Going To … ?' and the Moral Crusade of the Women's Social and Political Union and Jeffreys, S. (1982). "'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880–1914". Women's Studies International Forum. 5: 629–645. doi: 10.1016/0277-5395(82)90104-2., so there's no shortage of sources.
Can anyone here please help with cleaning up and refactoring these two articles? -- The Anome ( talk) 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The section " Politics behind stalking laws and civil liberties" in the Stalking article refers to feminist politics, and might be of interest to this project. Although the current tone of the section definitely does not meet the NPOV criteria, I think it could be improved: the possibility of links between the creation of stalking offences in the 1970s and the increasing awareness of women's rights and violence against women during the same period is definitely interesting, and could do with a treatment from a feminist viewpoint. Is anyone interested in working on editing this for NPOV? -- The Anome ( talk) 15:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can assess Raheel Raza, which is up in the DYK queue? Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say we're talking about the wording of the lede line of Feminism here and whether or not to include ideologies of female superiority in it-- Cailil talk 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone assist with an OTRS dispute before I appeal within the OTRS system? I've made multiple efforts to resolve with the OTRS admin but he has already made two errors on point, tried to have the whole article deleted specifically because of it and then told me that the subject is insignificant, and has not answered specific questions about facts. It appears the email affirmatively states what should be in the article and therefore was meant to be public. I'd like to compare the two published sources with the unpublished email side-by-side, since it seems no one else has done so or will, and I want to resolve all three sources, since it is entirely possible that the different media are discussing multiple events, not just one, in which case there may be no conflict. Any suggestions prior to an OTRS appeal?
I'm going to try to address the tag-bombing soon. First, I'd like to address the OTRS issue.
Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As related to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/News and notes, subsection: "Main page biases?"
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at different articles on archetypes/roles/slang terms/subcutures particular to women, such as these:
|
I was thinking of collecting these in a category or navigational template but wasn't sure of the scope or title. Any thoughts? Skomorokh 13:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Feminism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Raymond Lloyd has been nominated for deletion. Anyone feel like rescuing it? Kaldari ( talk) 06:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Witt_v._Department_of_the_Air_Force. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made a request on the toolserver to have a list of the most popular pages for our WikiProject generated. This should help us figure out which pages are the most important to spend time on improving. Once the list is generated, it will live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Popular pages. Our request key is mie8i2f. Kaldari ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Should the new article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute carry the Feminism sidebar? The article, now undergoing expansion, was created from similar material that had been at the Susan B. Anthony, Feminists for Life and Susan B. Anthony List articles. The FFL article is the only one of these currently holding the Feminism sidebar. Binksternet ( talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The word transphobic is rather glaring in its omission from that list. Oughtn't it be added? I searched the talk page archives, but found no discussion of this policy or its wording. Also, that paragraph could use a little editing for clarity. Nellie Kane ( talk) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's very telling that this page is empty and was deleted. Now it is nominated for deletion again! Anyone who cares about nail polish knows the name Deborah Lippman, she has designed nail polish for Lady Gaga. Her polishes are sold in stores like Sephora. The old page should not have been deleted, it should have been neutralized and expanded.
This is one of the reasons we have so few pages about women, anything outside of the experience of the rather geeky, mostly male wikipedia editors is removed quite quickly. This is an example of a larger trend. Would like to know hat other project members think. futurebird ( talk) 06:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Atheist feminism seems to be written without sources. I looked in Google Books and Google Scholar and find almost nothing to support the article. I do think there have been some remarkable women who were both feminist and atheist but I don't like Wikipedia being the source for this term. I could easily be wrong because I don't know about the five or six living women mentioned in the article and so leave it to you to correct me. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised that there was no article about Shyamala Rajender, so I created a new stub. It needs work, both within the article and in other articles that should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Feminism to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I am currently reworking on an article titled "Conversation Analysis and Feminism" and it has been deleted as it sounds too much like a personal essay. I was wondering if anyone can give me pointers on sounding "encyclopedic"? I have attached a small paragraph from my original article. Critiques and suggestions are definitely welcome! Thank you! Trevgeley ( talk) 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Conversation Analysis and Feminist Research
Feminist scholars have argued that the aims of CA are not incompatible with feminist studies. Schegloff, one of the founders of CA, argues that claims of gender relevance must be supported by participants’ orientations.[2] This has been challenged by several scholars, notably Wetherell, who contends that a complete scholarly analysis needs to be extended beyond what Schegloff proposed, and Billig, who challenges CA’s apparent stance of neutrality.[3] [4] Kitzinger observes that CA has also been left out in the classic work Doing Gender by West and Zimmerman, and “if it had been, those of us whose reading of Doing Gender was informed by a passionate commitment to social justice might have uncovered the value of CA for our research endeavours a decade earlier.”[5] Traditional feminists have typically eschewed CA because of its inability to advance political arguments.[6] CA is also criticized for its incompetence in “making the transitional links from micro-level observations to wider social structures and thus failing to produce effective political commentary”.[7] However, Stokoe (2000) argues that this is only true of feminist psychologists – other feminist scholars have employed CA in their research.[8] She cites the example of dominance theorists who have advanced political arguments by using CA to analyse and show dominance at the micro-level interactions. Also, Kitzinger and Wilkins argue that CA have contributed greatly to LGBT issues, such as the issue of “coming out”.[9] A recurring question is how far analysts can and should look beyond the data. To answer that question, Stokoe cites Kitzinger (2000), in drawing from Sack’s (1992) work on racism, argues that conversation analysts must consider what is “passed by, not said, and taken for granted in interaction”. [10][11]560).[12]'
Hi! Thank you for your response! However, the above is just a paragraph. I actually have a whole article written which will overwhelm the Conversation Analysis page and I am unsure if that is acceptable. Also, does the tone of the paragraph sound encyclopedic enough? Thanks, again! Trevgeley ( talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kaldari! That does help very much indeed! The current page I am working on is about 2200+ words, which is longer -- if not about the same length as -- than the current Conversation Analysis page. I actually did edit the existing original Conversation Analysis page before I started on this article -- in fact, that is what prompted me to start this article in the first place. There are reliable sources on Conversation Analysis and Feminist Research -- it is a relatively young field but it has been burgeoning in the past decade and many scholars have done research on this. I could give a longer and more extensive summary on the current Conversation Analysis page while working on an article that could be submitted to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Once again, thank you very much for your help! Trevgeley ( talk) 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
List of women novelists before Jane Austen is currently up for deletion. Comments welcome. Dsp13 ( talk) 01:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Good evening, Bonsoir, Shalom, I have worked on the Wiki page of Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso. The first woman to have been ordained a rabbi in the Reconstructionist movement of Judaism and also an author of eleven children's book. Also She soon became identified as one of the voices of feminist Judaism. But now this page is being considered for deletion . Please give yours opinions on this Discussion, Thank you so much for all yours contributions in this discussion , je vous remercie, אני תודה -- Geneviève ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank -- Geneviève ( talk) 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a new "Hot articles" section to the main page of the WikiProject. It shows the five articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. The list is automatically updated once a day by a bot I wrote. The underlying data is supplied by a script on the toolserver written by Tim1357. Hope you enjoy it. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improving it. And yes, I stole the original idea from Wikia. Kaldari ( talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent idea.. Bravo, --
Geneviève (
talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposals to merge the now-deleted Gynocracy article into the Matriarchy and Separatist feminism articles are under discussion, in the Gynocracy deletion review. The Gynocracy article was about women governing women and men, as described from the past or aspired to for the future. Some parts of the article discussed matriarchy, although none of the historical and aspirational descriptions were limited to mothers as the women governing, all being open to women generally. None were about feminist separatism, because men were among the governed, and not just briefly, and because this was not limited to separatism within the feminist movement or organizations, but were at a national level, although one possibility would be to include the content with an explanation that these cases are not strictly separatist or limited to feminist venues. There are prominent feminist advocates and several secondary sources. Thoughts on mergers? Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a misspelling (it caused a redlink): 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC))
Hello everyone! Currently we have 61 feminism-related articles that are completely unassessed. Please help to go through these articles and add assessments to their talk page templates. More information about how to do assessments can be found here. Kaldari ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Shalom, Hello Everybody, a page mattering for me as woman and as Jew: Women in Judaism. This page approaches a complex subject. I did not want to work sections on the orthodox Judaism, conservative Judaism and reformist Judaism. I did not want to miss respect to my Jewish sisters of the others Affiliations. I respects others' affiliations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism) but I realises this page haven't a small place for Reconstructionist Jews. I wrote one section for Women in Reconstructionist Judaism: User:Genevieve2/sandbox08. Please can you help me. You can edit, put comments on this sandbox because it is only a draft for making a section of wikipage page on Women in Judaism.
I thing thought of putting the text draft in the following section 4.4:
* 1 Biblical times * 2 Talmudic times * 3 Middle Ages o 3.1 Domestic law o 3.2 Religious developments * 4 Present day o 4.1 Orthodox Judaism + 4.1.1 Rules of modesty + 4.1.2 Rules of family purity + 4.1.3 Beis Yaakov + 4.1.4 Modern Orthodox Judaism + 4.1.5 Women's prayer groups + 4.1.6 Women as witnesses + 4.1.7 Debates within Orthodoxy + 4.1.8 Orthodox approaches to change o 4.2 Conservative Judaism + 4.2.1 Changes in the Conservative position + 4.2.2 Conservative approaches to change o 4.3 Reform Judaism + 4.3.1 Reform approaches to change
4.4 Reconstructionist Judaism
* 5 Footnotes * 6 See also * 7 External links * 8 References o 8.1 Orthodox Judaism and women
Working together. I also put the same note in the Talk page of the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Because I want to be including my Jewish sisters. Your opinions, suggestions and advices are welcome. Thank, Merci Beaucoup,תודה -- Geneviève ( talk) 10:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Shalom, Hello Everybody, . I am going to join the part Reconstructionist Judaism on the page Women in Judaism . Thanks to all contributors have to participate. Special thanks for Kaldari for all corrections. -- Geneviève ( talk) 01:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Per Danger's suggestion above, I went through a large chunk of the B-class articles to see if there are any low-hanging fruit for Good Article status (since sadly, we only have 4 good articles). Of all the B-class articles I looked at, it seems that Gloria Steinem is the most mature. Perhaps we could work together to bring it to Good Article status and nominate it some time soon. Kaldari ( talk) 23:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How mature is the article Feminism? Could we work on that next? -- Aronoel ( talk) 00:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at WP:DYK to describe a reality-star turned pornographic actress who
You can see the name at this diff. Nonplussedly, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Partially in response to the Wikipedia gender gap article, I've proposed WikiProject Women's History to expand Wikipedia's coverage of women's history from around the world. Please consider supporting the WikiProject proposal and/or contributing articles or WikiProject organizing help. Thanks. ---Shane Landrum ( cliotropic) 05:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just discovered this looking at archives of https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Maybe I'll give it a shot. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap CarolMooreDC ( talk) 04:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposals for increasing female editors is another option for contributing to this discussion. Both proposals generated by mailing list and those from outside it. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been chosen as the U.S. Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month for February 2011. As a project who has identified this article to be in your scope we encourage you to edit this article and help to build it up to better explain the subject and to get it promoted. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(Without asking, I copied the following post from the WikiProject Gender Studies Talk topic New York Times Article on Wikipedia Gender Bias (easier to read, perhaps, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#New_York_Times_article_on_Wikipedia_gender_bias)):
Project members might lke to note that The New York Times has published an article on the gender gap in Wikipedia's editor base and how it is affecting article quality. Written by Noam Cohen, it gives examples of how subjects dear to girls and women tend to be short while those dear to boys and men are voluminous. For example it points out that friendship bracelets likely to be of interest to teenage girls is limited to only four paragraphs , whereas baseball cards, more likely to be followed by boys is voluminous and includes a detailed chronological history of the subject. The entry on Sex and the City includes only a brief summary of each episode while the one on The Sopranos includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode. It quotes Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia foundation, as saying how she has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015 from its present 13%. Lumos3 ( talk) 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (Corrected my opening paragraph by adding the missing parenthesis: 06:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)) (Added "easier to read" parenthetical comment per intent behind user Dsp13's recent edit, albeit after CarolMooreDC's post below: 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
Please remain civil to one another. If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore it. Uncivil messages will be deleted. |
Hello Everybody, Shalom very interesting discussion: I believe that Wikipedia is the reflection of reports men and women in her really life. We do not escape it. It exceeds WikiProject Feminism. 2 Examples that I know well: in Wikipedia the pages of Women's Hockey isn't also elaborated because we are only 2 persons to work on it regularly (all the others persons prefer the male hockey). Furthermore there is a difficulty finding references: the information sources (books, newspapers, magazines) speak about many sports of the men ( not many references for Women's sports).Another example that I know well: In Wikipedia pages of Judaism, for a woman-contributor is more difficult for write a new page. Because the anothers persons (old members of WikiProject Judaism ) ask (...without saying it openly... )more a woman especially if she is young and no-orthodox. This is a very sad reality. And Wikipedia is very Human with all reality of human life. Thanks and courage, merci et courage à toutes, תודה ואומץ -- Geneviève ( talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Good morning Everybody, another point: The sentences written with harshness by certain persons. Yesterday I made an big error. The error is very human and this morning I read on my Talk page, a tone of harshness by one person ( read Non-free images and your userspace). This hurts my sensibility. I know one women which have left Wikipedia for this harshness....Pass a good week-end with your family, Shabbat Shalom -- Geneviève ( talk) 13:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read and consider this. In "A Culture of Editing Wars", part of the February 2, 2011 NY Times debate on Women in Wikipedia, Justine Cassell (professor/director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University writes in part:
It’s worth distinguishing between two different kinds of gender imbalance in Wikipedia. One is the relative length of articles and the number of articles that concern “women’s interests” (the Times article cites friendship bracelets and “Sex and the City”) vs. articles that concern “men’s interests” ("The Simpsons" and Grand Theft Auto). The second is the number of women who contribute vs. men who contribute overall. ...As for the source of the gender imbalance....
From the inside, on the other hand, Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view...
However, it is still the case in American society that debate, contention, and vigorous defense of one’s position is often still seen as a male stance, and women’s use of these speech styles can call forth negative evaluations. Women may be negatively judged for speaking their mind in clear ways and defending their position. A woman who wishes to collaboratively construct knowledge and share it with others might not choose to do so as part of a forum where engaging in debate and deleting others’ words is key.
...Even Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikipedia Foundation, seems reticent about defending her perspective on gender in Wikipedia. As she says in the Times article: “Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it. I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings.”
And of course there is the problem of Wikipedia's lack of willingness to punish insulting behavior, perhaps especially if a woman is accusing a male of it. (I guess a long research through WP:ANI and Wikquette complaints on incivility would have to be done to support a contention, to find instances of users who obviously are women complaining about obviously male editors and seeing if there complaints get less action that male complaints against males or females.) A lot of women just don't have the high testosterone to put up with such nonsense. I, infamously, do, and in fact I do have to control my editing behavior frequently because my assertive editing and arguing for my edits evidently gets males crazy (thus my many trips to Wikiquette about incivility). Where I believe my editing practices would be accepted with far less hostility if I was perceived as male. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There is 13 % of wikipedia persons who would be women (I imagine that it is on Wikipedia of English language). The direction(management) of the Foundation would be informed about this situation and would want that in 2015: 25 % are women. I do not believe in it. It seems to me pious wishes: Last friday on my talk page, a person threatened me with penalties further to an error of my part. I have about it to speak here on the page of discussion of the Wikiproject Feminism. Who defended me on my talk page? No woman. No leader of the feminist project. No leader of these diverse Feminist groups. No leader of the Wikipedia foundation. The only one person who intervened is a man and is my parain Ottawa4ever.
The person: Hammersoft who has me to threaten with penalties, did not even mean apologizing on my talk page of discussion. Nobody has to communicate with him...
How many women on Wikipedia were threatened with penalties? How much suffered emotional and left definitively but that nobody intervenes?
I predict for my part that in 2015, there will be less than 3 or 5 % who will be women. I am pessimistic yes and I do not see how the situation will change from now on. Studies and groups of consultations. The governments make it for decades on the conditions of the women. Be what it really changes in the real life?
I also think of the women of the French-speaking Wikipedia where the intimidation is more present than on English Wikipeda. I frequented the french wikipedia. French is my first language. I definitively left the French Wikipedia. Are it the French culture or are it many men of these countries (France, Belgique, Québec)? I do not know but I know that the feminist project does not work any more for lack of participants and that the male members have to try by twice to abolish this feminist project. This is only my opinion. Bonne chance and courage. Thanks -- Geneviève ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Bonsoir Kaldari, for my personal case It would need can be to speak with Hammersoft : without hurting him to remind him that nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility (reference Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers )
But for other cases where a man threatens a woman of penalty, it is too late. She has leave Wikipedia. -- Geneviève ( talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Article here. And it actually uses the " sexism" word and not the more euphemistic "gender gap." Reads in small part: Now, women's advocates Valerie Aurora and Mary Gardiner are determined to change this situation by the creation of The Ada Initiative, a non-profit organization to encourage women's participation in both FOSS and related groups such as the Free Culture Movement and Wikipedia. It's an ambitious effort, but one that the founders are determined to make, despite the inevitable hostility with which their efforts will be received in some circles. Here's there link: http://adainitiative.org/ Who wants to start the article? :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Per email I just posted on Gender gap email list, here are some issues (in addition to categories issue above) that women might want to look at:
Anyway, we definitely need more female input on all these. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 20:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There has been a suggestion on the gendergap mailing list that the Foundation hold some kind of event around March 8 (International Women's Day) to encourage new women editors to sign up. A provisional page has been opened on Meta to discuss this. Please see Women on Wikipedia Week, and its talk page. Although it's being called a week for now, it could be for a month. All input welcome. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I was alerted by some folks that the rape culture article needs some serious work. It's missing a lot of context, and modern incidents like #MooreandMe / Julian Assange, Roman Polanski, and the Penny Arcade dickwolves controversy. It's going to be tricky, because most of the controversy has been on blogs and internet forums - not reliable sources - and "rape culture" is not a phrase most major media sources are willing to use. But, the subjects are definitely notable and it deserves some attention. Anyone willing to help? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldari ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion moved to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Feminism.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kaldari (
talk •
contribs) 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is currently the 6th most popular article under our project. It is, however, barely more than a stub and needs some serious expansion. Towards this end, I have decided to unprotect the article in the hopes that it will receive some random kindness from strangers. Considering that most of the people viewing this article are students, however, I'm under no illusions that it will be free from vandalism. Please add this article to your watchlist so that we can quickly revert any vandalism that occurs. Thanks!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldari ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There has been a recent spate of AfDs for feminism articles, probably a coincidence; but still, it looks bad for Wikipedia. Please comment at the respective AfDs. Bearian ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
At the talk page of this essay discussing the use of hardcore pornography images in Wikipedia, there is currently a debate underway on whether certain pornographic genres (facials etc.) may properly be described as misogynistic in the essay, or whether this represents a culturally biased view. Input from knowledgeable editors would be welcome. See recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_images#Reverted_userfication and following sections. Thanks, -- JN 466 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The gist of it is, one editor wishes to remove all sexually explicit images from Wikipedia, labelling them generally as hardcore pornography. One of the arguments given is that pornography is misognyistic and abusive to women. So,the rationale that we should not alienate women is used to try to censor images that an editor does not like. Please contribute to the discussion. I have stated in the talk pages of that article that women can speak for themselves, and should not hide behin "protecting the delicate sensibilities" of women as an excuse or vehicle for their own opinions. Atom ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Views welcomed on the articles' talk pages. -- JN 466 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour, Shalom... Disturbed and shocked by the presence of these images on Wikipedia. Nothing surprises me on Wikipedia now. In when images of pedophilia? -- Geneviève ( talk) 16:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that accurately documenting the history of men humiliating women is appropriate, as is the case in the Bukkake article. I only wish there was more documentable history in that case. In the case of the creampie article, I am not sure what purpose there would be in bringing this up within Feminism. The topic is not corelated with Feminism. Atom ( talk) 02:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
GoodMorning, bonjour, I wrote a message on the Talk page of Bukkae. -- Geneviève ( talk) 12:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I asked on that talk page and repeating here. I just noticed Wife selling on the featured article list on Women's History and first thing I thought was - is that under Category:Sexism? It wasn't. I put it there. Let's see how long it stays. Is getting this sort of thing in that (and other related appropriate categories, whatever they may be) something that is better addressed/fought on one or both projects?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Meanwhile as to my original question, which project (Feminism v. Women's History) is the best place to list links to discussions in articles about categorizing (or anything else) articles which may overlap feminism and women's history, I now think either, since some people will be editing in one area and not in the other, and it may not occur to them to come here. Lost track of what the issue was in the discussion! Mea culpa. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, that this category will probably get as far as Category:Homophobia, which never gets far anywhere. For good reason. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's association football Bonjour, some males want to eliminate this sport page. Please Help me to preserve this page. Thanks, merci, תודה -- Geneviève ( talk) 16:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And the result: the page is kept and preserved. Great!!! Thanks u so much for your support, Best regards -- Geneviève ( talk) 22:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour, Good Morning, An incident: yesterday I put my message in the talk page of the new WikiProject on women's history. Here is the answer of a member of this project: # 48 Notifying projects about deletion discussions ...My reaction was remove my message on talk page of the new project and after reflection, I withdrew me definitively from this new project. That let us have to be made here in our feminist project when Wikipages on the women are threatened to be deleted and eliminated. Please your opinions and advice, Thanks -- Geneviève ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank Nick and Voceditenore to express your opinions but I shall like know the opinion of Kaldari and the opinion of Carolmooredc. 2 importants persons in my little heart. I remember my first appeal to the Women solidarity it was for the page on Sandy Eisenberg Sasso . It was in last december 2010 , see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Eisenberg Sasso. Yes the guideline exists but no person of the WikiProject Feminism had scolded me in december ( go to see in the archives of wikiproject Feminist in # 61 of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism/Archive_1#Rabbi_Sandy_Eisenberg_Sasso ). The law of the number discriminates all the women on Wikipedia and if we do not show solidarity, somes Women articles will be abolished. -- Geneviève ( talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank Kaldari. Your opinion is a big deception for me. Just to bad for me. I wish good luck to you to bring more women on Wikipedia. Bye -- Geneviève ( talk) 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
When something is nominated for deletion, are the relevant WikiProjects notified when contributing editors are? If not, they should be, and on the WikiProject's talk page: for an article, WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page; for a redirect, WikiProjects on the destination article's talk page; and so on. This should address a problem that can be implied from editor Genevieve's experience. Or is there disagreement on this notification being useful? Or is it up to each WikiProject to opt for notification? Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
That's something I've been thinking is pertinent to this Feminism project-- work for more gender equity within the community of WP editors. Recruit more women to be editors. Fight back hard against any form of sexism toward female editors. Work to change the overall culture here to make it not so lopsidedly male-heavy.
Because it's a disgrace and a failure of the community when female editors are discouraged from contributing because the alpha male editors keep canceling out their work. Women's understandable unwillingness to submit themselves to that kind of treatment, keeping the proportion of women low, makes it harder for the rest of us. All I've been doing so far is fixing up articles, and occasionally creating new articles about notable women. I'm not acquainted with how things are run in the upper echelons of WP editorship, so I'm writing to ask for ideas.
Perhaps one way to begin would be by gathering stories giving concrete instances of sexism against women editors here, and how the dominantly male culture tends to suppress women's contributions. (see How to Suppress Women's Writing by Joanna Russ). I bet most of us, if not all of us, have stories like that to tell. Maybe by gathering these accounts, patterns will emerge from the data, and give a clearer focus to the direction of how to proceed from there.
I apologize if this is going over old ground. I'm a newcomer to WikiProject Feminism, and I'm sure this must have been already discussed (but it's hard to think of which search terms would find this specific issue in the talk archives). Please bring me (and other newcomers) up to date on what's been done so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna-Hypatia ( talk Johanna-Hypatia ( talk) 21:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
When I read the remark, I wondered why the editor wasn't immediately blocked in accordance with WP:CIV — the remarks were uncivil in the same way that racist or homophobic remarks are not in compliance with the civility policy. Attacks on the person's gender just happened to be the mode. A report should've been made to the appropriate forum at the time, and perhaps there's no point in belaboring it now. (I didn't note the date at the time.) As for shaming: the person posted the remarks publicly. If he were capable of being shamed by them, or felt they were atypical and regrettable, he had the option of requesting an administrative deletion. (Again, no diff to follow the thread to see whether he recanted or apologized.) However, the real sexism here is within ourselves, if we think that we have to tolerate nasty personal attacks without "drama" because we're women. One way of shutting up women has traditionally been to tell us that we'd better be nice or the men won't like us. Cynwolfe ( talk) 18:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a discussion of an off wikilink. Please read carefully before deciding to use it.
I think one thing the discussion above showed is that we do need more and better categories that Sexism. If there are good ones we should know about, maybe they should be listed on the main page. [Later note, I see Category:Women's rights exists. But that doesn't cover everything sufficiently. Check it out]
Some [new ones] might be Category:Patriarchy or Category:Patriarchal practices or maybe Category:Male dominance. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for constructive tips, Nick. Will continue waiting for other feedback as look for any other relevant existing categories and how they are organized and think about other categories that might be more appropriate. Re: Talk Page Wife Selling (english custom) I was more making the point that material on patriarchal/sexist aspect had been overlooked. But it's not a high enough priority for me to search out the universe of material not findable on google that would allow a paragraph on the topic, not to mention add some relevant see alsos. Sometimes one must control the urge to edit. I do it more than otherwise, in fact. :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some categories created:
..............with sub-categories:
Do I request this, or do I just go ahead and create them? (And if so, how would I do that?) OttawaAC ( talk) 19:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been concerned about the issues of alleged bigots (antisemites, racists especially) being allowed to be categorized into those categories, but others like homophobia not. And I don't think anyone's tried to put people in category sexism but I think we know what would happen. In fact in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories which is mean to spur debate on the issue of having a consistent policy, I responded re: use of Category:Sexism, rather like respondent before me: And he'd support adding about 2,000 male biographies to sexism too? (Over time lots of sexists not yet identified thusly yet could be added. I've got about 25 in mind off top of my head.) What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think a lot of women would be really ticked if one kind of bigotry category was added to some pages but a bunch of guys flocked to category sexism to demand it not be allowed to be added to well known sexists ala sufficient numbers of WP:RS. It might get (more) national media attention. :-) Yup, I drank too much coffee this am. Anyway, feel free to opine if it's a concern of yours. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There is an image discussion on the talk page of Creampie (sexual act). Input welcome. -- JN 466 13:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Feminism for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
A proposal for a women's issues / gender issues noticeboard is being discussed on the Gendergap list. Is there a need for such a thing? Would it work, or would it be counterproductive? Views welcome. -- JN 466 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
As I opined on the "Gender Gap" List, the noticeboard IS too combative and won't have much positive effect *at this point. Even the feedback here on a defacto Feminism list lately has not been too supportive of feminist perspectives, so even though at least it has gotten a few of us to work on some common goals. "Just imagine a noticeboard where even more males would be watching" what the a tiny minority of women might post they are unhappy about.
My alternate suggestion is something like a WIKIPROJECT:WOMEN'S CAFE as an education, social and support area, one which could have a section on articles of interest, in addition to wikiproject feminism. If it was too newbie or touchy-feely for some guys, so be it. Of course, the real solution is flooding wikipedia with thousands of 60 something educated semi and retired women (uppity who don't give a damn about what men think??) with just enough computer skills - (thousands of CarolmooreDcs??) :-) And even enough money to help keep the servers running. If I had the money, I'd run the monthly AARP magazine advert myself. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 11:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the editor who cooly wrote "Not necessary. Period." is in fact a woman. A woman who, until the media picked up the story and ran with it, did not know or care whether Wikipedia has more men than women. I simply don't see the need for another noticeboard. At all. Ever. I think there's quite a lot of good that could be done with this project - in fact I can think of long lists of articles that can be developed or written, but the kneejerk reaction that we need a noticeboard is not something that jumps to mind immediately. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I was saying the toys are clearly marketed to one gender, not that the Wikipedia articles are. From your tone I get the impression that you don't think any sort of systemic solutions would be helpful here (please correct me if I'm wrong) but just to clarify my postion, my hypothetical suggestion would be to prioritize the quality and quantity issues with the "male" toy articles, not to, for example, create separate articles for every Bratz and My Little Pony character to outweigh the sprawl of Category:Transformers characters and Category:G.I. Joe characters. Siawase ( talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I want to make 2 points here.
Such debates should happen on meta (as they are already) or at the village pump.-- Cailil talk 03:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Four subtopics are infusing this topic. Separating them will help us focus. These continue the above.
No existing policy or guideline is being rejected. It is permissible under WP:CONLIMITED for a WikiProject to "convince the broader community that ... [an] action [to "decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope"] is right", and it is therefore appropriate to discuss that first within the WikiProject. And we're not, I think, seeking to make a policy or guideline inapplicable other than to add an option and adapt policies and guidelines to a solution that retains more women as editors.
Adding to Meta and going to Village Pump may be apropos later, if this WikiProject develops a consensus of what to suggest.
If people on the WikiProject page are disagreeing on whether sexism even exists in Wikipedia, the disagreement will likely be even more severe in the other fora. Those of us who agree on the problem can at least focus on a solution without as much noise.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One concession: Sexism here is probably not worse than in society at large. It's just not better, either.
Editors who leave are hardly monitored via talk pages, which get updated much less often, if at all. The 13 percent (give or take) refers to the lack of women, not their lesser activity per woman. Lesser activity probably applies, too, but I don't think I've seen that figure.
On deletions: We can't canvass including for others and I don't have statistics, but I have noticed that many porn models who appear in one well-known magazine for one month are considered notable, while a feminist topic with eight sources was challenged as nonnotable and irreparably nonneutral (ignoring that neutrality is for the subject's write-up and not the subject itself) and tag-bombing was applied. The article survived. Another feminist article was challenged for alleged lack of sourcing but not the criticisms in the same article, although the criticisms were then absolutely lacking sourcing (since corrected but not because anyone suggested anything about the criticisms). Unreasonable challenges occupy time, hours of it re-researching and restating what's already known. I was tempted to nominate the porn model articles for deletion except for those who had achieved something else as well, but wasn't sure I should and saw that someone tried that en masse and failed.
Maybe someone can say whether ad hominem attacks have virtually stopped. Irrelevant and groundless charges are made and persist despite corrective efforts and they can, in my opinion, be just as damaging. Existing protective systems seem to have been gamed by editors who don't care.
If Wikipedia articles have very little showing that sexism is widespread in the world, that helps illustrate the problem. If it does show that for the world, it's no less widespread in Wikipedia.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not patronizing when solutions are voluntary. Mentoring is voluntary and would become patronizing if we were forced to be mentored. If some editors are competitive and want to defeat other editors, then sexism is one of their tools of choice, but we can oppose that option. Not every woman has to use the solutions we develop in order for Wikipedia to gain more good content or raise content quality.
I don't think we need to worry about whether a solution will lead some people to add to the problem because they decided to by reverse-engineering the solution. The 13 percent suggests they won't get much more inspiration from us anyway.
Some men certainly help. The 13 percent suggests more help is in order.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We already agreed that the noticeboard probably wouldn't be good. Unless someone wants the noticeboard, let's stop that discussion and let's discuss what's open. That's the Cafe, among other possibilities. Please address those. Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Cafe Idea. Here's what I wrote on Women's list, plus some additions. I assume it technically would have to be a Wikiproject; probably will have more ideas after read the Wikipedia Women facebook page which has lots of contributors, all women. [Later note: as I said else where, it would be open to men, but those invalidating the purpose of the project probably would not feel too comfortable.]In fact can pass this by them, after get any opinions here:
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 05:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "self-declaration-based list" - since that seems to be what all such lists are. But it should be "Editors willing to help," not just admins, and then whether or not they are an admin is not as important. But its all theoretical til a few people are willing to take on creating such a project. And that probably shouldn't be til there are a few more women, including on this page. Chicken or egg issues. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there will be massive and correct resistance to this due to the community's experience with WP:Esperanza (which began as a very well intentioned and on paper reasonable idea). Perhaps that was before your time but it has had a lasting impact on how we do 'community' on WP-- Cailil talk 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*Before I address your main points, I do want to say you have misinterpreted three things:
I've just created a new category on Commons: commons:Category:Feminist demonstrations. Wikipedians and Commons editors are invited to help populate it with relevant photographs and link it into relevant articles on feminism. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I gave up hope they would do it, but they did. See decision here. Well, that saves me a lot of work of putting certain PEOPLE in the categories where they belong, reasoning that what's good for the goose in some categories is good for the gander in Category:Sexism. :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has been continually accusing me of having a feminist bias in all the discussions we are both involved in. I've notified them of AGF and I've filed a Wikiquette alert, but the editor hasn't seemed to have stopped. Honestly it's been really wearing me down, so I was hoping someone here could give me some advice. -- Aronoel ( talk) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
An article on feminist science is not present. The Feminism article has a section on the subject. Several articles exist on specific feminist sciences. But there's no bringing-together of the range of feminist science. I noticed this after someone complained that feminist science is a philosophy and not a science, and that is not the case; and perhaps that point in particular should be addressed in an article. Is anyone interested in (and does anyone have the time for) writing on feminist science generally? Nick Levinson ( talk) 07:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Today being International Women's Day, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_7#Category:Filipina_poets concerning the naming of categories for people from the Philippines. Input welcome, -- JN 466 03:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A recently created article Abolition of Prostitution is up for AfD. WikiProject Feminism members may wish to participate in the deletion discussion. — Tom Morris ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you who've worked on improving Wikipedia's coverage of historical women. I'm a relative novice to Wikipedia, but about a month ago, in response to the NYT article on the WP gender gap, I started WikiProject Women's History in hopes of bringing more women into Wikipedia. (I'm a US historian by training, and I'm doing outreach to educators about assigning Wikipedia writing as part of their women's/gender history courses.)
As we try to get our project rolling, we'd very much appreciate the help of WikiProject Feminism members with project-organizing tasks, assessment, task-force leadership, marking pages for cleanup, and editing. We've identified over 6,500 articles relevant to women's history, and we're also maintaining a list of requested articles. Read our talk page and if you want to join us, please do.
Thanks! ---Shane Landrum ( cliotropic | talk | contribs) 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I made you spit your coffee across the table. Important debate at Talk:Sexism#Domestic_Violence. Kaldari ( talk) 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed that we create a WikiProject devoted to Women's sport: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, in 24 hours, the queue at Wikipedia:Credo accounts will open. Credo is an online commercial reference service that is normally only available through libraries and universities. The list will probably only take a few hours to fill up, so set an alarm or something so you don't forgot. Kaldari ( talk) 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose to improve the Wikipedia page titled Labor force. At the moment it does not present a global prespective, and to a great extent, it does not mention where women stand in the labor force. I want to discuss the overall topic of who is in the labor force and who is not. When considering arigultural versus non-agricultural work, informal and formal labor, paid and unpaid labor, there any many loop holes in which workers in other countries, specifically women, are misrepresented. Currently, there are many discussions about whether these various forms of labor should be included in the labor force, and if so, if the definition of the labor force should be changed into a definition that encompasses a greater majority of the world's workers. I think the presentation of these arguments (in a non-biased way) is important to remind people where women and workers outside the United States stand. I do not want to post a feminist contribution that will be taken down, but by including the arguments and facts I stated above, I will subtly be making a statement as to why it seems that there are fewer women in the labor force. If the definition of the labor force were to be changed into one that encompassed informal labor and unpaid labor, then women would be better represented (because after all, though they may not receive compensation, the work they do is just as demanding as any other work). Any comments or suggestions? MariaNunez ( talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am attempting to create a new entry for "Bodily Integrity", but struggling to incorporate all definitions and perspectives. There is a large body of literature from ant-circumcision advocates, but I'd also like to include a section on feminist theory (freedom from sexual assault, personal autonomy, etc.) With the hopes of avoiding overgeneralization, can I get some feedback on feminist scholars or scholarly sources that address the issue of bodily integrity? Or is it even worth it to include feminism on the page? Keb838 ( talk) 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Georgetown University Professor Robin Kelley is teaching Women and Human Rights, and has decided to integrate Wikipedia editing into the course after reading about the gendergap issue. She is seeking the assistance of other editors to watch and aid her students' progress. You can find out about her course and the new student editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Spring_2011/Women_and_Human_Rights_(Robin_Kelley). The list of articles they're going to be working on is still developing, but already includes:
Let's help these women learn the ropes and develop their articles into something they can be proud of. Who knows, they may even stick around! Kaldari ( talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Anabuiles8 ( talk) 02:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
I am interested in adding and revising the content of the Feminization of Poverty page. Although the current article discusses the basic concepts of the issue, we want to expand and link the issue to the deprivation of human capabilities, specifically health and education. Impoverished women lack the resources to obtain and secure health for both themselves and their children. Gender inequality and poverty increase women's risk of poor health, and reduce their access to health care and education. Education is especially important for women who hope to lift themselves and their families out of poverty, and to increase women's independence. We want to stress the need for a multidimensional perspective on feminization of poverty, and to consider how critical this phenomenon is to women's rights and capabilities. Please take a look at the Feminization of Poverty page, and any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks! -- Yk12 ( talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I’m interested in creating a new page on Domestic Violence and Pregnancy. Pregnancy-related violence is a serious public health issue and although there are a plethora of scholarly articles and resources on the interrelationship between pregnancy and domestic violence, there is currently no Wikipedia page on it. The Birth control sabotage article covers part of the topic but is by no means all-inclusive. The incidence rates of domestic violence in pregnancies are also discussed in the Epidemiology of domestic violence article. However, there is currently no page synthesizing this information or bringing in the copious amounts of outside research. In fact, pregnancy is only mentioned once in the main Domestic Violence article. There is a growing body of research on this topic and it would be important to have a separate article to highlight the importance of this issue.
I have two questions for the Feminism WikiProject Members. First, are there any suggestions on how to make this page as complete and as meaningful as it can be? Also, I originally planned on making this a separate page but do you think it would be better as a subsection as part of the Domestic Violence article as a whole? There is enough information to make a separate page but since it is a contentious issue would it be better as part of the larger page? WikiProject Feminism currently lists the Domestic Violence article as C-Class, High-Importance so the imput of the Feminism members will be very important for the future of the Domestic Violence and Pregnancy addition. Cshaase ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am creating an entry on “Household Bargaining,” which will specifically explore the subject of gender relations in intra-household bargaining and decision-making. Wikipedia currently has articles on Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power but these articles only address bargaining in terms of the economic, labor and/or global market, and they fail to acknowledge the role bargaining plays within a household. The existing articles also fail to acknowledge the traditional inequality between men and women in household decision-making, which is why I thought this addition might fall under the WikiProject Feminism umbrella.Bina_Agarwal
The inspiration for this entry comes from Bina Agarwal's work in feminist economics and her study on intra-household bargaining [7], yet the existing entry for Agarwal does not substantially address this important subject.
Do any Feminism WikiProject members have thoughts on this subject or suggestions for related sources? I was planning on making an entirely new entry instead of including it in the more market and economics oriented "Bargaining" and "Inequality of Bargaining Power" pages, but does anyone think I should do otherwise? Mfandersen ( talk) 01:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Wikipedia policy so please excuse me if there is some mistake in my post.
I am referring to the page "Feminist movement". On that page it states that "At the UN's Pan Pacific Southeast Asia Women's Association 21st International Conference in 2001 it was stated that "in the world as a whole, women comprise 51 percent of the population, do 66 percent of the work, receive 10 percent of the income and own less than one percent of the property"
It goes on to provide a citation. I accessed the citation, which of course repeats the often stated claim that "women do 66% of the world's work". However, like all of the other websites which make this claim, it provides no evidence, research or study for this statement.
I have searched significantly on the internet to try to find the original research, but I cannot find any evidence to support this claim. All of the websites merely make this claim without any backup reference.
I think that this statement and the citation should be removed since it is unverified information. There is no evidence to suggest that women do 66% of the world's work. Continuing to keep it in this article is disinformation/ misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.127.66 ( talk) 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this raises a major issue about what wikipedia should do when a factual claim is made, which has no evidence to support it. Women readers, feminists, etc., I challenge you to find any study which proves this claim. 175.100.127.66 ( talk) 08:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I'm glad you mentioned about the UN... I kept asking myself why you were mentioning the UN, until I realized that the organization in the link is not the UN. It is an NGO/ non- profit organization. So the text of the article is actually incorrect. I think I'm going to go edit that now. @Aronoel- could you provide more detail, or which data fields to check in the UNICEF database? I looked at that briefly but that data on men and women's labor is not one of the indicators available under "women". I will check it again. Anyone else had more luck finding a study or data showing the "66%" figure? 175.100.127.94 ( talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:EA 175.100.127.94 ( talk) 00:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the 66% figure, that is clearly stated as if it is 66% of the whole. That is a different kind of statement than "what is the percent difference between men and women's work, when men's work is held at a constant 100%?" I have written to two UN agencies and they have not provided any source for the claim. Since they do not have any data or solid research about women's work as a total percentage of 100% on a global scale, I would say that they have no competency in that area. Unreliable source, in that specific context and in relation to that subject matter.
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 5 |
Well done, everyone, particularly Grrrlriot! This portal is really shaping up! -- Phyesalis ( talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at these 2 pages: User:Grrrlriot/to_do and User:Grrrlriot/create2. I need references and sources for ALL of them that are listed on those 2 pages. (Some aren't feminist related, but the 2nd link is feminist related.) I hope someone can help me out. If you can help me out, please post the references/sources on those 2 pages. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm reluctant to take on new commitments but occasionally have energy to help, message me on my talk page and I'll do what I can. Also I'm somewhat active with the Rescue project so if an article that is worthy and salvageable could potentially be tagged with {{ rescue}} if put up for AfD. Benji boi 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I put something on the agenda: Fat feminism and Amazon feminism. These two articles are a serious problem - I'm in the position that I think they should either be deleted or drastically reduced and merged to a section of Feminist theory in a sub-section about Body theory (the feminist uses of Bahktin, Foucault, Goffman etc). A part of me thinks the two pages in question border on hoaxes or cool ideas that cannot be properly sourced. I'd really appreciate a second, third and fourth opinion on them-- Cailil talk 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks, a worthy project would be finding citations for all the listings in this list. I've had to deal with deletion fights for couple anarchist-related lists that were only headed off by very vigilant citing. Murderbike ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the real problems I've encountered in bringing the quality of various feminism and gender studies related article up to GA is lack of pictures. I'd like to put forward an idea that any images on flickr or similar sites published either with GDFL or Creative Commons licensing should be sought for addition to the commons. Anyone who undertook this would have to get to grips with wikimedia's licensing and image policies (which is an area I know little about) so that the images don't infringe copyright and are properly described. If anyone has any knowledge of this process it would benefit the project greatly-- Cailil talk 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have extensive experience with appropriating Flickr images for Commons, so if you see a Flickr image you like that has a free license, just drop me a line or comment here and I will arrange the upload. Skomorokh 12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested a rewording of the task force's scope to depersonalize the "if you troll I will warn you". Like everything on WP this is a group effort, so if trolling occurs trolls will be warned as per normal WP procedure under WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:EQ.
I've done some other rewords. I've removed the "who support feminism" from the the clause "open to men and women". The task force has to be open to everyone regardless of their views on feminism - so anyone can join as long as they respect WP:5P. In other words so long as their purpose is to work civilly, in good faith and by consensus to improve encyclopedic content on the subject of feminism, anyone can join-- Cailil talk 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(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)
I think it would be a good idea to have feminism by countries. I noticed that a few countries already have their own feminism page. What do you think? Here is a sample of what I'm talking about: User:Grrrlriot/Sandbox -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am wanting the task force to look something like this. However, I need everyone's help making the task force useful. -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone here be interested in working on the Mary Astell article together? I would like to create a series of articles on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century feminists (I've already done Mary Wollstonecraft) and Astell is one of the most important and her article is only start class right now. Awadewit ( talk) 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Portal:Feminism/Feminism Task Force page (de-wikilinked on purpose) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force: as this is a subproject of WP:GS is should be a subpage off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, not the portal. Cirt ( talk) 17:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just today, the article on Margaret Fuller reached Good Article status. I'd like to bring it up to Featured Article soon but I was wondering if a fresh set of eyes wanted to give it a once-over, either for copy-editing or to give some feedback. Many thanks. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Greta, you are phenomenal. OK I just completely rewrote Female ejaculation - it is not perfect, but it was absolutely dreadful before (Skene's gland is worse), and completely Male Lens. That imbalance is now fixed. I am sure there are a number of other women's health articles in urgent need of attention. Are any other articles tagged yet as an example?
I then found there was not even a category for Women's health! - there is now. Maybe somebody thought Gynaecology covered it. I found a page with that title, which was woeful. I quote "Women's health refers to health issues specific to human female anatomy"! (I placed a more inclusive definition on the Category page of that title.) Michael. (not being one for anonymity I placed personal details on Talk page) Mgoodyear ( talk) 15:31, 11 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)
Do you think that the FTF page is too crowded or does it look good how it is? Does any of the sections on the page need to be rearranged or does the page look good how it is? I want your feedback. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I came across this project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Since I've noticed that, just like on email lists, males seem to make a lot more WP:attacks on me as an obvious female editor than they do on obvious male editors, I made a new section "Sexism, especially in WP:Attadk" in that project, including recommendation for a survey of women wikipedia editors -- to no response. I don't know if this is subject or "project" appropriate for this task force, but (having endured yet another gratuitous attack for something I didn't even say today), thought I'd mention it. Carol Moore 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
Portal:Feminism is now a featured portal. Great! :) Thanks everyone for making this happen! -- Grrrlriot ( ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 17:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to do a quick copyedit on my new article for Anne Dallas Dudley, I would be much obliged. Or if you're feeling ambitious, it could certainly use expansion. Kaldari ( talk) 23:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the Feminism Task Force page need a makeover or a better layout? If so, let me know what needs to be improved. If your willing to make a better layout for the task force, reply to this and I will let you do the layout. Thanks in advance! -- Grrrlriot ( ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read the article carefully, and take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domestic_discipline. Posting this notice here is somewhat off-topic, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Family_and_relationships, which lists domestic violence on the project page, seems dead. VG ☎ 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Recently I was joking that terrorism was just one more variety of bad male behavior that should be under a grand category called Category:patriarchy. Then getting serious I looked and found there is no category called patriarchy, including under Category:Feminism. There isn't even an article on "male chauvinism" - just a chauvinism article that talks as much about female as male chauvinism! I think there are enough WP:RS to justify creating Category:patriarchy and putting lots of articles under it. And a lot of articles could have short sections on why certain behavior is patriarchal - like war, terrorism, rape, etc. Any thoughts? It certainly would be a consciousness raiser for the majority of editors :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Women's Strike for Equality was recently expanded by User:JourdanM170. It needs a lot of clean-up and copy-editing though. I've fixed some of the significant problems, but it still needs help, mostly just grammar and wording fixes. (I suspect JourdanM170 is not a native English speaker.) Any help would be appreciated. Kaldari ( talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This page has been brought to my attention as a bit of a subject of concern. Any help in the article would be greatly appreciated. John Carter ( talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Heads up. The Woman's Bible has been nominated for Good Article status. If it passes, it will become our 2nd Good Article. Please help Binksternet polish this article up for the review. Kaldari ( talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
An article I made a while back, American philosophy, has developed fairly well recently. It has a section on feminism, and, since I am not an expert on the subject (and my work has yet to be revised), I was wondering if someone versed in the subject matter of feminist philosophy in America could take a look at it and possibly improve it. Expansion, revision, or even a rewrite of that section would be accepted. I think the section should be no longer than three paragraphs or so. Here is the link American philosophy#Feminism. Thank You. Best, JEN9841 ( talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see a specific place to flag CfD under your project pages? Anyway, participants in this WP may want to comment on the proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_25#Category:Feminists. AllyD ( talk) 15:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. At the suggestion of User:Binksternet, I bring to your attention the possibility of creating an article on Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols, whose name appears several times in the article on Free love, but for whom no article currently exists. I will also post this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies#Suggested article, starting resources provided, in case that should bear fruit.
I encountered the Free love article while checking for information on health educators of Mary Gove Nichols' era, having previously cited her in that context. I realised that there is much more to Gove Nichols than can be done justice by a brief mention in an article on either women's movements or health promotion (important as such mentions are). So I created a section on the Free love discussion page in which I provided some resources and comments which may facilitate creation of an article on her. I also made some comments on Binksternet's discussion page. Rather than repeat that information here, I refer you to the links where I fleshed out the argument as best I could, along with resources as found.
I note by the way an interesting 'conundrum' regarding Mary's surname, of Gove Nichols. These days I daresay it would be hyphernated to Gove-Nichols. But in her own use, she did not. Whether that reflects the style of the time (i.e. no hyphernation), or her own usage, I've not checked at time of this message, and don't have a driving urge to do so (but I probably will, dammit - although fortunately the unresolved question doesn't bug me too much just now). So how is this a 'conundrum'? Well, a reader seeing just "Gove Nichols" could not be expected to know that this is isn't a first name and surname, whereas a reader seeing Gove-Nichols would interpret this as a hyphernated surname without any effort.
So if I was writng an article on Mary S. Gove Nichols, I'd want to resolve the question of how to refer to her surname in the article, rather than just reiterating versions of her full name as I've done to date. There may be 'standardised' ways of dealing with this (but not necessarily. Phenomena have a habit of confounding human attempts at conceptualisation - a version of John D. Barrow's "Groucho Marx Effect", not to mention other paradoxes which people like Douglas Hofstader have had fun pointing out in say, Gödel, Escher, Bach). In the absence of an uncontroversially standardised way of dealing with this, I'd define my method in the lead section (e.g. "hereafter Gove-Nichols"), with a footnote to say why. From a quick look at the book Shameless: The Visionary Life of Mary Gove Nichols, it seems some writers skirt the issue by using the full name "Mary Gove Nichols" each time. Easily do-able in a book. The only problem with that in a one-page Wikipedia article, is it looks a bit clumsy, I reckon. More importantly, a reader could easily think this was her first, middle and last name, which it most certainly was not. Even more reason to explicate her name, and the use of it.
Good old 'Gove-Nichols' eh? Giving people something to think about even in something as seemingly simple as her name. Perhaps you begin to see my intrigue... Regards Wotnow ( talk) 02:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In case anyone would like to weigh in with comments or corrections, Jeannette Piccard is nominated at FAC. Piccard was the first woman in space and one of the first women to be ordained a priest. Also I am working on Simone de Beauvoir, while reading the very long biography by Dierdre Bair (this could take a while but I would like to see her article reach GA and then FA). - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If someone could assess Gita Sahgal, who has been in the news a lot this past month (feminist head of Amnesty's Gender Unit--she was just suspended), that would be great.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 02:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder whether someone from the task force would take a look at womb veil, a form of barrier contraception in the 19th-century U.S. I happened upon this term when I was researching something else in the history of gynecology, and when I found no article in Wikipedia (but a mention, to my surprise, in Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln), I spent a week researching and writing one. I learned much that was new to me about contraception during the time, and the range of attitudes toward contraception in general and toward this particular device, from "It places conception entirely under the control of the wife, to whom it naturally belongs" to "womb-veils will exterminate the descendants of the Mayflower." So I was pretty disappointed when the first response to it was from an editor who found it pointless and uninteresting and rated it as a C. I'm hoping someone with a feel for social history and women's studies might bring a different perspective. Did I utterly miss the mark with this? (I most often write articles about antiquity.) Please glance at the talk page as well. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, anyone feels like writing about the dark ages of hysterectomy and other such subjects? Plenty of female health articles could also use help btw. Richiez ( talk) 12:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The upgrade from task force to WikiProject is almost complete. I'm waiting on some category caches to update and then I'll mass migrate all the artiles. In the meantime, some of the bot services might be broken for a little while. I'm reposting the Unreferenced BLPs here, in case they accidently get removed from the project page by the bot. These need to have citations added or they will probably get deleted at some point in the future:
Kaldari ( talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment. Talk:Circumcision#Requested_move. -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The
anti-pornography movement article has become a mess: it's recently been bent into a badly-written rehash of
Feminist views on pornography, and completely erased all mention of either non-feminist or pre-1970's anti-pornography movements in the process. At the same time, I've noticed that there is quite poor coverage no coverage whatsoever of pre-1970s feminist opposition to pornography in
Feminist views on pornography.
A few moments Googling finds Militant Discourse, Strange Bedfellows: Suffragettes and Vorticists Before the War, and Crying 'the horror' of Prostitution: Elizabeth Robins's 'Where Are You Going To … ?' and the Moral Crusade of the Women's Social and Political Union and Jeffreys, S. (1982). "'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880–1914". Women's Studies International Forum. 5: 629–645. doi: 10.1016/0277-5395(82)90104-2., so there's no shortage of sources.
Can anyone here please help with cleaning up and refactoring these two articles? -- The Anome ( talk) 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The section " Politics behind stalking laws and civil liberties" in the Stalking article refers to feminist politics, and might be of interest to this project. Although the current tone of the section definitely does not meet the NPOV criteria, I think it could be improved: the possibility of links between the creation of stalking offences in the 1970s and the increasing awareness of women's rights and violence against women during the same period is definitely interesting, and could do with a treatment from a feminist viewpoint. Is anyone interested in working on editing this for NPOV? -- The Anome ( talk) 15:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can assess Raheel Raza, which is up in the DYK queue? Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say we're talking about the wording of the lede line of Feminism here and whether or not to include ideologies of female superiority in it-- Cailil talk 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone assist with an OTRS dispute before I appeal within the OTRS system? I've made multiple efforts to resolve with the OTRS admin but he has already made two errors on point, tried to have the whole article deleted specifically because of it and then told me that the subject is insignificant, and has not answered specific questions about facts. It appears the email affirmatively states what should be in the article and therefore was meant to be public. I'd like to compare the two published sources with the unpublished email side-by-side, since it seems no one else has done so or will, and I want to resolve all three sources, since it is entirely possible that the different media are discussing multiple events, not just one, in which case there may be no conflict. Any suggestions prior to an OTRS appeal?
I'm going to try to address the tag-bombing soon. First, I'd like to address the OTRS issue.
Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As related to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/News and notes, subsection: "Main page biases?"
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at different articles on archetypes/roles/slang terms/subcutures particular to women, such as these:
|
I was thinking of collecting these in a category or navigational template but wasn't sure of the scope or title. Any thoughts? Skomorokh 13:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Feminism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Raymond Lloyd has been nominated for deletion. Anyone feel like rescuing it? Kaldari ( talk) 06:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Witt_v._Department_of_the_Air_Force. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made a request on the toolserver to have a list of the most popular pages for our WikiProject generated. This should help us figure out which pages are the most important to spend time on improving. Once the list is generated, it will live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Popular pages. Our request key is mie8i2f. Kaldari ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Should the new article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute carry the Feminism sidebar? The article, now undergoing expansion, was created from similar material that had been at the Susan B. Anthony, Feminists for Life and Susan B. Anthony List articles. The FFL article is the only one of these currently holding the Feminism sidebar. Binksternet ( talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The word transphobic is rather glaring in its omission from that list. Oughtn't it be added? I searched the talk page archives, but found no discussion of this policy or its wording. Also, that paragraph could use a little editing for clarity. Nellie Kane ( talk) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's very telling that this page is empty and was deleted. Now it is nominated for deletion again! Anyone who cares about nail polish knows the name Deborah Lippman, she has designed nail polish for Lady Gaga. Her polishes are sold in stores like Sephora. The old page should not have been deleted, it should have been neutralized and expanded.
This is one of the reasons we have so few pages about women, anything outside of the experience of the rather geeky, mostly male wikipedia editors is removed quite quickly. This is an example of a larger trend. Would like to know hat other project members think. futurebird ( talk) 06:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Atheist feminism seems to be written without sources. I looked in Google Books and Google Scholar and find almost nothing to support the article. I do think there have been some remarkable women who were both feminist and atheist but I don't like Wikipedia being the source for this term. I could easily be wrong because I don't know about the five or six living women mentioned in the article and so leave it to you to correct me. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised that there was no article about Shyamala Rajender, so I created a new stub. It needs work, both within the article and in other articles that should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Feminism to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I am currently reworking on an article titled "Conversation Analysis and Feminism" and it has been deleted as it sounds too much like a personal essay. I was wondering if anyone can give me pointers on sounding "encyclopedic"? I have attached a small paragraph from my original article. Critiques and suggestions are definitely welcome! Thank you! Trevgeley ( talk) 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Conversation Analysis and Feminist Research
Feminist scholars have argued that the aims of CA are not incompatible with feminist studies. Schegloff, one of the founders of CA, argues that claims of gender relevance must be supported by participants’ orientations.[2] This has been challenged by several scholars, notably Wetherell, who contends that a complete scholarly analysis needs to be extended beyond what Schegloff proposed, and Billig, who challenges CA’s apparent stance of neutrality.[3] [4] Kitzinger observes that CA has also been left out in the classic work Doing Gender by West and Zimmerman, and “if it had been, those of us whose reading of Doing Gender was informed by a passionate commitment to social justice might have uncovered the value of CA for our research endeavours a decade earlier.”[5] Traditional feminists have typically eschewed CA because of its inability to advance political arguments.[6] CA is also criticized for its incompetence in “making the transitional links from micro-level observations to wider social structures and thus failing to produce effective political commentary”.[7] However, Stokoe (2000) argues that this is only true of feminist psychologists – other feminist scholars have employed CA in their research.[8] She cites the example of dominance theorists who have advanced political arguments by using CA to analyse and show dominance at the micro-level interactions. Also, Kitzinger and Wilkins argue that CA have contributed greatly to LGBT issues, such as the issue of “coming out”.[9] A recurring question is how far analysts can and should look beyond the data. To answer that question, Stokoe cites Kitzinger (2000), in drawing from Sack’s (1992) work on racism, argues that conversation analysts must consider what is “passed by, not said, and taken for granted in interaction”. [10][11]560).[12]'
Hi! Thank you for your response! However, the above is just a paragraph. I actually have a whole article written which will overwhelm the Conversation Analysis page and I am unsure if that is acceptable. Also, does the tone of the paragraph sound encyclopedic enough? Thanks, again! Trevgeley ( talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kaldari! That does help very much indeed! The current page I am working on is about 2200+ words, which is longer -- if not about the same length as -- than the current Conversation Analysis page. I actually did edit the existing original Conversation Analysis page before I started on this article -- in fact, that is what prompted me to start this article in the first place. There are reliable sources on Conversation Analysis and Feminist Research -- it is a relatively young field but it has been burgeoning in the past decade and many scholars have done research on this. I could give a longer and more extensive summary on the current Conversation Analysis page while working on an article that could be submitted to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Once again, thank you very much for your help! Trevgeley ( talk) 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
List of women novelists before Jane Austen is currently up for deletion. Comments welcome. Dsp13 ( talk) 01:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Good evening, Bonsoir, Shalom, I have worked on the Wiki page of Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso. The first woman to have been ordained a rabbi in the Reconstructionist movement of Judaism and also an author of eleven children's book. Also She soon became identified as one of the voices of feminist Judaism. But now this page is being considered for deletion . Please give yours opinions on this Discussion, Thank you so much for all yours contributions in this discussion , je vous remercie, אני תודה -- Geneviève ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank -- Geneviève ( talk) 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a new "Hot articles" section to the main page of the WikiProject. It shows the five articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. The list is automatically updated once a day by a bot I wrote. The underlying data is supplied by a script on the toolserver written by Tim1357. Hope you enjoy it. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improving it. And yes, I stole the original idea from Wikia. Kaldari ( talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent idea.. Bravo, --
Geneviève (
talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposals to merge the now-deleted Gynocracy article into the Matriarchy and Separatist feminism articles are under discussion, in the Gynocracy deletion review. The Gynocracy article was about women governing women and men, as described from the past or aspired to for the future. Some parts of the article discussed matriarchy, although none of the historical and aspirational descriptions were limited to mothers as the women governing, all being open to women generally. None were about feminist separatism, because men were among the governed, and not just briefly, and because this was not limited to separatism within the feminist movement or organizations, but were at a national level, although one possibility would be to include the content with an explanation that these cases are not strictly separatist or limited to feminist venues. There are prominent feminist advocates and several secondary sources. Thoughts on mergers? Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a misspelling (it caused a redlink): 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC))
Hello everyone! Currently we have 61 feminism-related articles that are completely unassessed. Please help to go through these articles and add assessments to their talk page templates. More information about how to do assessments can be found here. Kaldari ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Shalom, Hello Everybody, a page mattering for me as woman and as Jew: Women in Judaism. This page approaches a complex subject. I did not want to work sections on the orthodox Judaism, conservative Judaism and reformist Judaism. I did not want to miss respect to my Jewish sisters of the others Affiliations. I respects others' affiliations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism) but I realises this page haven't a small place for Reconstructionist Jews. I wrote one section for Women in Reconstructionist Judaism: User:Genevieve2/sandbox08. Please can you help me. You can edit, put comments on this sandbox because it is only a draft for making a section of wikipage page on Women in Judaism.
I thing thought of putting the text draft in the following section 4.4:
* 1 Biblical times * 2 Talmudic times * 3 Middle Ages o 3.1 Domestic law o 3.2 Religious developments * 4 Present day o 4.1 Orthodox Judaism + 4.1.1 Rules of modesty + 4.1.2 Rules of family purity + 4.1.3 Beis Yaakov + 4.1.4 Modern Orthodox Judaism + 4.1.5 Women's prayer groups + 4.1.6 Women as witnesses + 4.1.7 Debates within Orthodoxy + 4.1.8 Orthodox approaches to change o 4.2 Conservative Judaism + 4.2.1 Changes in the Conservative position + 4.2.2 Conservative approaches to change o 4.3 Reform Judaism + 4.3.1 Reform approaches to change
4.4 Reconstructionist Judaism
* 5 Footnotes * 6 See also * 7 External links * 8 References o 8.1 Orthodox Judaism and women
Working together. I also put the same note in the Talk page of the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Because I want to be including my Jewish sisters. Your opinions, suggestions and advices are welcome. Thank, Merci Beaucoup,תודה -- Geneviève ( talk) 10:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Shalom, Hello Everybody, . I am going to join the part Reconstructionist Judaism on the page Women in Judaism . Thanks to all contributors have to participate. Special thanks for Kaldari for all corrections. -- Geneviève ( talk) 01:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Per Danger's suggestion above, I went through a large chunk of the B-class articles to see if there are any low-hanging fruit for Good Article status (since sadly, we only have 4 good articles). Of all the B-class articles I looked at, it seems that Gloria Steinem is the most mature. Perhaps we could work together to bring it to Good Article status and nominate it some time soon. Kaldari ( talk) 23:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How mature is the article Feminism? Could we work on that next? -- Aronoel ( talk) 00:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at WP:DYK to describe a reality-star turned pornographic actress who
You can see the name at this diff. Nonplussedly, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Partially in response to the Wikipedia gender gap article, I've proposed WikiProject Women's History to expand Wikipedia's coverage of women's history from around the world. Please consider supporting the WikiProject proposal and/or contributing articles or WikiProject organizing help. Thanks. ---Shane Landrum ( cliotropic) 05:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just discovered this looking at archives of https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Maybe I'll give it a shot. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap CarolMooreDC ( talk) 04:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposals for increasing female editors is another option for contributing to this discussion. Both proposals generated by mailing list and those from outside it. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been chosen as the U.S. Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month for February 2011. As a project who has identified this article to be in your scope we encourage you to edit this article and help to build it up to better explain the subject and to get it promoted. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(Without asking, I copied the following post from the WikiProject Gender Studies Talk topic New York Times Article on Wikipedia Gender Bias (easier to read, perhaps, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#New_York_Times_article_on_Wikipedia_gender_bias)):
Project members might lke to note that The New York Times has published an article on the gender gap in Wikipedia's editor base and how it is affecting article quality. Written by Noam Cohen, it gives examples of how subjects dear to girls and women tend to be short while those dear to boys and men are voluminous. For example it points out that friendship bracelets likely to be of interest to teenage girls is limited to only four paragraphs , whereas baseball cards, more likely to be followed by boys is voluminous and includes a detailed chronological history of the subject. The entry on Sex and the City includes only a brief summary of each episode while the one on The Sopranos includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode. It quotes Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia foundation, as saying how she has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015 from its present 13%. Lumos3 ( talk) 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (Corrected my opening paragraph by adding the missing parenthesis: 06:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)) (Added "easier to read" parenthetical comment per intent behind user Dsp13's recent edit, albeit after CarolMooreDC's post below: 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
Please remain civil to one another. If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore it. Uncivil messages will be deleted. |
Hello Everybody, Shalom very interesting discussion: I believe that Wikipedia is the reflection of reports men and women in her really life. We do not escape it. It exceeds WikiProject Feminism. 2 Examples that I know well: in Wikipedia the pages of Women's Hockey isn't also elaborated because we are only 2 persons to work on it regularly (all the others persons prefer the male hockey). Furthermore there is a difficulty finding references: the information sources (books, newspapers, magazines) speak about many sports of the men ( not many references for Women's sports).Another example that I know well: In Wikipedia pages of Judaism, for a woman-contributor is more difficult for write a new page. Because the anothers persons (old members of WikiProject Judaism ) ask (...without saying it openly... )more a woman especially if she is young and no-orthodox. This is a very sad reality. And Wikipedia is very Human with all reality of human life. Thanks and courage, merci et courage à toutes, תודה ואומץ -- Geneviève ( talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Good morning Everybody, another point: The sentences written with harshness by certain persons. Yesterday I made an big error. The error is very human and this morning I read on my Talk page, a tone of harshness by one person ( read Non-free images and your userspace). This hurts my sensibility. I know one women which have left Wikipedia for this harshness....Pass a good week-end with your family, Shabbat Shalom -- Geneviève ( talk) 13:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read and consider this. In "A Culture of Editing Wars", part of the February 2, 2011 NY Times debate on Women in Wikipedia, Justine Cassell (professor/director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University writes in part:
It’s worth distinguishing between two different kinds of gender imbalance in Wikipedia. One is the relative length of articles and the number of articles that concern “women’s interests” (the Times article cites friendship bracelets and “Sex and the City”) vs. articles that concern “men’s interests” ("The Simpsons" and Grand Theft Auto). The second is the number of women who contribute vs. men who contribute overall. ...As for the source of the gender imbalance....
From the inside, on the other hand, Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view...
However, it is still the case in American society that debate, contention, and vigorous defense of one’s position is often still seen as a male stance, and women’s use of these speech styles can call forth negative evaluations. Women may be negatively judged for speaking their mind in clear ways and defending their position. A woman who wishes to collaboratively construct knowledge and share it with others might not choose to do so as part of a forum where engaging in debate and deleting others’ words is key.
...Even Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikipedia Foundation, seems reticent about defending her perspective on gender in Wikipedia. As she says in the Times article: “Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it. I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings.”
And of course there is the problem of Wikipedia's lack of willingness to punish insulting behavior, perhaps especially if a woman is accusing a male of it. (I guess a long research through WP:ANI and Wikquette complaints on incivility would have to be done to support a contention, to find instances of users who obviously are women complaining about obviously male editors and seeing if there complaints get less action that male complaints against males or females.) A lot of women just don't have the high testosterone to put up with such nonsense. I, infamously, do, and in fact I do have to control my editing behavior frequently because my assertive editing and arguing for my edits evidently gets males crazy (thus my many trips to Wikiquette about incivility). Where I believe my editing practices would be accepted with far less hostility if I was perceived as male. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There is 13 % of wikipedia persons who would be women (I imagine that it is on Wikipedia of English language). The direction(management) of the Foundation would be informed about this situation and would want that in 2015: 25 % are women. I do not believe in it. It seems to me pious wishes: Last friday on my talk page, a person threatened me with penalties further to an error of my part. I have about it to speak here on the page of discussion of the Wikiproject Feminism. Who defended me on my talk page? No woman. No leader of the feminist project. No leader of these diverse Feminist groups. No leader of the Wikipedia foundation. The only one person who intervened is a man and is my parain Ottawa4ever.
The person: Hammersoft who has me to threaten with penalties, did not even mean apologizing on my talk page of discussion. Nobody has to communicate with him...
How many women on Wikipedia were threatened with penalties? How much suffered emotional and left definitively but that nobody intervenes?
I predict for my part that in 2015, there will be less than 3 or 5 % who will be women. I am pessimistic yes and I do not see how the situation will change from now on. Studies and groups of consultations. The governments make it for decades on the conditions of the women. Be what it really changes in the real life?
I also think of the women of the French-speaking Wikipedia where the intimidation is more present than on English Wikipeda. I frequented the french wikipedia. French is my first language. I definitively left the French Wikipedia. Are it the French culture or are it many men of these countries (France, Belgique, Québec)? I do not know but I know that the feminist project does not work any more for lack of participants and that the male members have to try by twice to abolish this feminist project. This is only my opinion. Bonne chance and courage. Thanks -- Geneviève ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Bonsoir Kaldari, for my personal case It would need can be to speak with Hammersoft : without hurting him to remind him that nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility (reference Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers )
But for other cases where a man threatens a woman of penalty, it is too late. She has leave Wikipedia. -- Geneviève ( talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Article here. And it actually uses the " sexism" word and not the more euphemistic "gender gap." Reads in small part: Now, women's advocates Valerie Aurora and Mary Gardiner are determined to change this situation by the creation of The Ada Initiative, a non-profit organization to encourage women's participation in both FOSS and related groups such as the Free Culture Movement and Wikipedia. It's an ambitious effort, but one that the founders are determined to make, despite the inevitable hostility with which their efforts will be received in some circles. Here's there link: http://adainitiative.org/ Who wants to start the article? :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Per email I just posted on Gender gap email list, here are some issues (in addition to categories issue above) that women might want to look at:
Anyway, we definitely need more female input on all these. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 20:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There has been a suggestion on the gendergap mailing list that the Foundation hold some kind of event around March 8 (International Women's Day) to encourage new women editors to sign up. A provisional page has been opened on Meta to discuss this. Please see Women on Wikipedia Week, and its talk page. Although it's being called a week for now, it could be for a month. All input welcome. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I was alerted by some folks that the rape culture article needs some serious work. It's missing a lot of context, and modern incidents like #MooreandMe / Julian Assange, Roman Polanski, and the Penny Arcade dickwolves controversy. It's going to be tricky, because most of the controversy has been on blogs and internet forums - not reliable sources - and "rape culture" is not a phrase most major media sources are willing to use. But, the subjects are definitely notable and it deserves some attention. Anyone willing to help? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldari ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion moved to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Feminism.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kaldari (
talk •
contribs) 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is currently the 6th most popular article under our project. It is, however, barely more than a stub and needs some serious expansion. Towards this end, I have decided to unprotect the article in the hopes that it will receive some random kindness from strangers. Considering that most of the people viewing this article are students, however, I'm under no illusions that it will be free from vandalism. Please add this article to your watchlist so that we can quickly revert any vandalism that occurs. Thanks!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldari ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There has been a recent spate of AfDs for feminism articles, probably a coincidence; but still, it looks bad for Wikipedia. Please comment at the respective AfDs. Bearian ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
At the talk page of this essay discussing the use of hardcore pornography images in Wikipedia, there is currently a debate underway on whether certain pornographic genres (facials etc.) may properly be described as misogynistic in the essay, or whether this represents a culturally biased view. Input from knowledgeable editors would be welcome. See recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_images#Reverted_userfication and following sections. Thanks, -- JN 466 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The gist of it is, one editor wishes to remove all sexually explicit images from Wikipedia, labelling them generally as hardcore pornography. One of the arguments given is that pornography is misognyistic and abusive to women. So,the rationale that we should not alienate women is used to try to censor images that an editor does not like. Please contribute to the discussion. I have stated in the talk pages of that article that women can speak for themselves, and should not hide behin "protecting the delicate sensibilities" of women as an excuse or vehicle for their own opinions. Atom ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Views welcomed on the articles' talk pages. -- JN 466 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour, Shalom... Disturbed and shocked by the presence of these images on Wikipedia. Nothing surprises me on Wikipedia now. In when images of pedophilia? -- Geneviève ( talk) 16:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that accurately documenting the history of men humiliating women is appropriate, as is the case in the Bukkake article. I only wish there was more documentable history in that case. In the case of the creampie article, I am not sure what purpose there would be in bringing this up within Feminism. The topic is not corelated with Feminism. Atom ( talk) 02:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
GoodMorning, bonjour, I wrote a message on the Talk page of Bukkae. -- Geneviève ( talk) 12:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I asked on that talk page and repeating here. I just noticed Wife selling on the featured article list on Women's History and first thing I thought was - is that under Category:Sexism? It wasn't. I put it there. Let's see how long it stays. Is getting this sort of thing in that (and other related appropriate categories, whatever they may be) something that is better addressed/fought on one or both projects?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Meanwhile as to my original question, which project (Feminism v. Women's History) is the best place to list links to discussions in articles about categorizing (or anything else) articles which may overlap feminism and women's history, I now think either, since some people will be editing in one area and not in the other, and it may not occur to them to come here. Lost track of what the issue was in the discussion! Mea culpa. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, that this category will probably get as far as Category:Homophobia, which never gets far anywhere. For good reason. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's association football Bonjour, some males want to eliminate this sport page. Please Help me to preserve this page. Thanks, merci, תודה -- Geneviève ( talk) 16:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And the result: the page is kept and preserved. Great!!! Thanks u so much for your support, Best regards -- Geneviève ( talk) 22:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour, Good Morning, An incident: yesterday I put my message in the talk page of the new WikiProject on women's history. Here is the answer of a member of this project: # 48 Notifying projects about deletion discussions ...My reaction was remove my message on talk page of the new project and after reflection, I withdrew me definitively from this new project. That let us have to be made here in our feminist project when Wikipages on the women are threatened to be deleted and eliminated. Please your opinions and advice, Thanks -- Geneviève ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank Nick and Voceditenore to express your opinions but I shall like know the opinion of Kaldari and the opinion of Carolmooredc. 2 importants persons in my little heart. I remember my first appeal to the Women solidarity it was for the page on Sandy Eisenberg Sasso . It was in last december 2010 , see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Eisenberg Sasso. Yes the guideline exists but no person of the WikiProject Feminism had scolded me in december ( go to see in the archives of wikiproject Feminist in # 61 of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism/Archive_1#Rabbi_Sandy_Eisenberg_Sasso ). The law of the number discriminates all the women on Wikipedia and if we do not show solidarity, somes Women articles will be abolished. -- Geneviève ( talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank Kaldari. Your opinion is a big deception for me. Just to bad for me. I wish good luck to you to bring more women on Wikipedia. Bye -- Geneviève ( talk) 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
When something is nominated for deletion, are the relevant WikiProjects notified when contributing editors are? If not, they should be, and on the WikiProject's talk page: for an article, WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page; for a redirect, WikiProjects on the destination article's talk page; and so on. This should address a problem that can be implied from editor Genevieve's experience. Or is there disagreement on this notification being useful? Or is it up to each WikiProject to opt for notification? Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
That's something I've been thinking is pertinent to this Feminism project-- work for more gender equity within the community of WP editors. Recruit more women to be editors. Fight back hard against any form of sexism toward female editors. Work to change the overall culture here to make it not so lopsidedly male-heavy.
Because it's a disgrace and a failure of the community when female editors are discouraged from contributing because the alpha male editors keep canceling out their work. Women's understandable unwillingness to submit themselves to that kind of treatment, keeping the proportion of women low, makes it harder for the rest of us. All I've been doing so far is fixing up articles, and occasionally creating new articles about notable women. I'm not acquainted with how things are run in the upper echelons of WP editorship, so I'm writing to ask for ideas.
Perhaps one way to begin would be by gathering stories giving concrete instances of sexism against women editors here, and how the dominantly male culture tends to suppress women's contributions. (see How to Suppress Women's Writing by Joanna Russ). I bet most of us, if not all of us, have stories like that to tell. Maybe by gathering these accounts, patterns will emerge from the data, and give a clearer focus to the direction of how to proceed from there.
I apologize if this is going over old ground. I'm a newcomer to WikiProject Feminism, and I'm sure this must have been already discussed (but it's hard to think of which search terms would find this specific issue in the talk archives). Please bring me (and other newcomers) up to date on what's been done so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna-Hypatia ( talk Johanna-Hypatia ( talk) 21:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
When I read the remark, I wondered why the editor wasn't immediately blocked in accordance with WP:CIV — the remarks were uncivil in the same way that racist or homophobic remarks are not in compliance with the civility policy. Attacks on the person's gender just happened to be the mode. A report should've been made to the appropriate forum at the time, and perhaps there's no point in belaboring it now. (I didn't note the date at the time.) As for shaming: the person posted the remarks publicly. If he were capable of being shamed by them, or felt they were atypical and regrettable, he had the option of requesting an administrative deletion. (Again, no diff to follow the thread to see whether he recanted or apologized.) However, the real sexism here is within ourselves, if we think that we have to tolerate nasty personal attacks without "drama" because we're women. One way of shutting up women has traditionally been to tell us that we'd better be nice or the men won't like us. Cynwolfe ( talk) 18:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a discussion of an off wikilink. Please read carefully before deciding to use it.
I think one thing the discussion above showed is that we do need more and better categories that Sexism. If there are good ones we should know about, maybe they should be listed on the main page. [Later note, I see Category:Women's rights exists. But that doesn't cover everything sufficiently. Check it out]
Some [new ones] might be Category:Patriarchy or Category:Patriarchal practices or maybe Category:Male dominance. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for constructive tips, Nick. Will continue waiting for other feedback as look for any other relevant existing categories and how they are organized and think about other categories that might be more appropriate. Re: Talk Page Wife Selling (english custom) I was more making the point that material on patriarchal/sexist aspect had been overlooked. But it's not a high enough priority for me to search out the universe of material not findable on google that would allow a paragraph on the topic, not to mention add some relevant see alsos. Sometimes one must control the urge to edit. I do it more than otherwise, in fact. :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some categories created:
..............with sub-categories:
Do I request this, or do I just go ahead and create them? (And if so, how would I do that?) OttawaAC ( talk) 19:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been concerned about the issues of alleged bigots (antisemites, racists especially) being allowed to be categorized into those categories, but others like homophobia not. And I don't think anyone's tried to put people in category sexism but I think we know what would happen. In fact in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories which is mean to spur debate on the issue of having a consistent policy, I responded re: use of Category:Sexism, rather like respondent before me: And he'd support adding about 2,000 male biographies to sexism too? (Over time lots of sexists not yet identified thusly yet could be added. I've got about 25 in mind off top of my head.) What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think a lot of women would be really ticked if one kind of bigotry category was added to some pages but a bunch of guys flocked to category sexism to demand it not be allowed to be added to well known sexists ala sufficient numbers of WP:RS. It might get (more) national media attention. :-) Yup, I drank too much coffee this am. Anyway, feel free to opine if it's a concern of yours. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There is an image discussion on the talk page of Creampie (sexual act). Input welcome. -- JN 466 13:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Feminism for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
A proposal for a women's issues / gender issues noticeboard is being discussed on the Gendergap list. Is there a need for such a thing? Would it work, or would it be counterproductive? Views welcome. -- JN 466 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
As I opined on the "Gender Gap" List, the noticeboard IS too combative and won't have much positive effect *at this point. Even the feedback here on a defacto Feminism list lately has not been too supportive of feminist perspectives, so even though at least it has gotten a few of us to work on some common goals. "Just imagine a noticeboard where even more males would be watching" what the a tiny minority of women might post they are unhappy about.
My alternate suggestion is something like a WIKIPROJECT:WOMEN'S CAFE as an education, social and support area, one which could have a section on articles of interest, in addition to wikiproject feminism. If it was too newbie or touchy-feely for some guys, so be it. Of course, the real solution is flooding wikipedia with thousands of 60 something educated semi and retired women (uppity who don't give a damn about what men think??) with just enough computer skills - (thousands of CarolmooreDcs??) :-) And even enough money to help keep the servers running. If I had the money, I'd run the monthly AARP magazine advert myself. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 11:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the editor who cooly wrote "Not necessary. Period." is in fact a woman. A woman who, until the media picked up the story and ran with it, did not know or care whether Wikipedia has more men than women. I simply don't see the need for another noticeboard. At all. Ever. I think there's quite a lot of good that could be done with this project - in fact I can think of long lists of articles that can be developed or written, but the kneejerk reaction that we need a noticeboard is not something that jumps to mind immediately. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I was saying the toys are clearly marketed to one gender, not that the Wikipedia articles are. From your tone I get the impression that you don't think any sort of systemic solutions would be helpful here (please correct me if I'm wrong) but just to clarify my postion, my hypothetical suggestion would be to prioritize the quality and quantity issues with the "male" toy articles, not to, for example, create separate articles for every Bratz and My Little Pony character to outweigh the sprawl of Category:Transformers characters and Category:G.I. Joe characters. Siawase ( talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I want to make 2 points here.
Such debates should happen on meta (as they are already) or at the village pump.-- Cailil talk 03:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Four subtopics are infusing this topic. Separating them will help us focus. These continue the above.
No existing policy or guideline is being rejected. It is permissible under WP:CONLIMITED for a WikiProject to "convince the broader community that ... [an] action [to "decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope"] is right", and it is therefore appropriate to discuss that first within the WikiProject. And we're not, I think, seeking to make a policy or guideline inapplicable other than to add an option and adapt policies and guidelines to a solution that retains more women as editors.
Adding to Meta and going to Village Pump may be apropos later, if this WikiProject develops a consensus of what to suggest.
If people on the WikiProject page are disagreeing on whether sexism even exists in Wikipedia, the disagreement will likely be even more severe in the other fora. Those of us who agree on the problem can at least focus on a solution without as much noise.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One concession: Sexism here is probably not worse than in society at large. It's just not better, either.
Editors who leave are hardly monitored via talk pages, which get updated much less often, if at all. The 13 percent (give or take) refers to the lack of women, not their lesser activity per woman. Lesser activity probably applies, too, but I don't think I've seen that figure.
On deletions: We can't canvass including for others and I don't have statistics, but I have noticed that many porn models who appear in one well-known magazine for one month are considered notable, while a feminist topic with eight sources was challenged as nonnotable and irreparably nonneutral (ignoring that neutrality is for the subject's write-up and not the subject itself) and tag-bombing was applied. The article survived. Another feminist article was challenged for alleged lack of sourcing but not the criticisms in the same article, although the criticisms were then absolutely lacking sourcing (since corrected but not because anyone suggested anything about the criticisms). Unreasonable challenges occupy time, hours of it re-researching and restating what's already known. I was tempted to nominate the porn model articles for deletion except for those who had achieved something else as well, but wasn't sure I should and saw that someone tried that en masse and failed.
Maybe someone can say whether ad hominem attacks have virtually stopped. Irrelevant and groundless charges are made and persist despite corrective efforts and they can, in my opinion, be just as damaging. Existing protective systems seem to have been gamed by editors who don't care.
If Wikipedia articles have very little showing that sexism is widespread in the world, that helps illustrate the problem. If it does show that for the world, it's no less widespread in Wikipedia.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not patronizing when solutions are voluntary. Mentoring is voluntary and would become patronizing if we were forced to be mentored. If some editors are competitive and want to defeat other editors, then sexism is one of their tools of choice, but we can oppose that option. Not every woman has to use the solutions we develop in order for Wikipedia to gain more good content or raise content quality.
I don't think we need to worry about whether a solution will lead some people to add to the problem because they decided to by reverse-engineering the solution. The 13 percent suggests they won't get much more inspiration from us anyway.
Some men certainly help. The 13 percent suggests more help is in order.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We already agreed that the noticeboard probably wouldn't be good. Unless someone wants the noticeboard, let's stop that discussion and let's discuss what's open. That's the Cafe, among other possibilities. Please address those. Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Cafe Idea. Here's what I wrote on Women's list, plus some additions. I assume it technically would have to be a Wikiproject; probably will have more ideas after read the Wikipedia Women facebook page which has lots of contributors, all women. [Later note: as I said else where, it would be open to men, but those invalidating the purpose of the project probably would not feel too comfortable.]In fact can pass this by them, after get any opinions here:
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 05:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "self-declaration-based list" - since that seems to be what all such lists are. But it should be "Editors willing to help," not just admins, and then whether or not they are an admin is not as important. But its all theoretical til a few people are willing to take on creating such a project. And that probably shouldn't be til there are a few more women, including on this page. Chicken or egg issues. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there will be massive and correct resistance to this due to the community's experience with WP:Esperanza (which began as a very well intentioned and on paper reasonable idea). Perhaps that was before your time but it has had a lasting impact on how we do 'community' on WP-- Cailil talk 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
*Before I address your main points, I do want to say you have misinterpreted three things:
I've just created a new category on Commons: commons:Category:Feminist demonstrations. Wikipedians and Commons editors are invited to help populate it with relevant photographs and link it into relevant articles on feminism. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I gave up hope they would do it, but they did. See decision here. Well, that saves me a lot of work of putting certain PEOPLE in the categories where they belong, reasoning that what's good for the goose in some categories is good for the gander in Category:Sexism. :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has been continually accusing me of having a feminist bias in all the discussions we are both involved in. I've notified them of AGF and I've filed a Wikiquette alert, but the editor hasn't seemed to have stopped. Honestly it's been really wearing me down, so I was hoping someone here could give me some advice. -- Aronoel ( talk) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
An article on feminist science is not present. The Feminism article has a section on the subject. Several articles exist on specific feminist sciences. But there's no bringing-together of the range of feminist science. I noticed this after someone complained that feminist science is a philosophy and not a science, and that is not the case; and perhaps that point in particular should be addressed in an article. Is anyone interested in (and does anyone have the time for) writing on feminist science generally? Nick Levinson ( talk) 07:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Today being International Women's Day, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_7#Category:Filipina_poets concerning the naming of categories for people from the Philippines. Input welcome, -- JN 466 03:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A recently created article Abolition of Prostitution is up for AfD. WikiProject Feminism members may wish to participate in the deletion discussion. — Tom Morris ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you who've worked on improving Wikipedia's coverage of historical women. I'm a relative novice to Wikipedia, but about a month ago, in response to the NYT article on the WP gender gap, I started WikiProject Women's History in hopes of bringing more women into Wikipedia. (I'm a US historian by training, and I'm doing outreach to educators about assigning Wikipedia writing as part of their women's/gender history courses.)
As we try to get our project rolling, we'd very much appreciate the help of WikiProject Feminism members with project-organizing tasks, assessment, task-force leadership, marking pages for cleanup, and editing. We've identified over 6,500 articles relevant to women's history, and we're also maintaining a list of requested articles. Read our talk page and if you want to join us, please do.
Thanks! ---Shane Landrum ( cliotropic | talk | contribs) 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I made you spit your coffee across the table. Important debate at Talk:Sexism#Domestic_Violence. Kaldari ( talk) 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed that we create a WikiProject devoted to Women's sport: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, in 24 hours, the queue at Wikipedia:Credo accounts will open. Credo is an online commercial reference service that is normally only available through libraries and universities. The list will probably only take a few hours to fill up, so set an alarm or something so you don't forgot. Kaldari ( talk) 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose to improve the Wikipedia page titled Labor force. At the moment it does not present a global prespective, and to a great extent, it does not mention where women stand in the labor force. I want to discuss the overall topic of who is in the labor force and who is not. When considering arigultural versus non-agricultural work, informal and formal labor, paid and unpaid labor, there any many loop holes in which workers in other countries, specifically women, are misrepresented. Currently, there are many discussions about whether these various forms of labor should be included in the labor force, and if so, if the definition of the labor force should be changed into a definition that encompasses a greater majority of the world's workers. I think the presentation of these arguments (in a non-biased way) is important to remind people where women and workers outside the United States stand. I do not want to post a feminist contribution that will be taken down, but by including the arguments and facts I stated above, I will subtly be making a statement as to why it seems that there are fewer women in the labor force. If the definition of the labor force were to be changed into one that encompassed informal labor and unpaid labor, then women would be better represented (because after all, though they may not receive compensation, the work they do is just as demanding as any other work). Any comments or suggestions? MariaNunez ( talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am attempting to create a new entry for "Bodily Integrity", but struggling to incorporate all definitions and perspectives. There is a large body of literature from ant-circumcision advocates, but I'd also like to include a section on feminist theory (freedom from sexual assault, personal autonomy, etc.) With the hopes of avoiding overgeneralization, can I get some feedback on feminist scholars or scholarly sources that address the issue of bodily integrity? Or is it even worth it to include feminism on the page? Keb838 ( talk) 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Georgetown University Professor Robin Kelley is teaching Women and Human Rights, and has decided to integrate Wikipedia editing into the course after reading about the gendergap issue. She is seeking the assistance of other editors to watch and aid her students' progress. You can find out about her course and the new student editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Spring_2011/Women_and_Human_Rights_(Robin_Kelley). The list of articles they're going to be working on is still developing, but already includes:
Let's help these women learn the ropes and develop their articles into something they can be proud of. Who knows, they may even stick around! Kaldari ( talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Anabuiles8 ( talk) 02:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
I am interested in adding and revising the content of the Feminization of Poverty page. Although the current article discusses the basic concepts of the issue, we want to expand and link the issue to the deprivation of human capabilities, specifically health and education. Impoverished women lack the resources to obtain and secure health for both themselves and their children. Gender inequality and poverty increase women's risk of poor health, and reduce their access to health care and education. Education is especially important for women who hope to lift themselves and their families out of poverty, and to increase women's independence. We want to stress the need for a multidimensional perspective on feminization of poverty, and to consider how critical this phenomenon is to women's rights and capabilities. Please take a look at the Feminization of Poverty page, and any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks! -- Yk12 ( talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I’m interested in creating a new page on Domestic Violence and Pregnancy. Pregnancy-related violence is a serious public health issue and although there are a plethora of scholarly articles and resources on the interrelationship between pregnancy and domestic violence, there is currently no Wikipedia page on it. The Birth control sabotage article covers part of the topic but is by no means all-inclusive. The incidence rates of domestic violence in pregnancies are also discussed in the Epidemiology of domestic violence article. However, there is currently no page synthesizing this information or bringing in the copious amounts of outside research. In fact, pregnancy is only mentioned once in the main Domestic Violence article. There is a growing body of research on this topic and it would be important to have a separate article to highlight the importance of this issue.
I have two questions for the Feminism WikiProject Members. First, are there any suggestions on how to make this page as complete and as meaningful as it can be? Also, I originally planned on making this a separate page but do you think it would be better as a subsection as part of the Domestic Violence article as a whole? There is enough information to make a separate page but since it is a contentious issue would it be better as part of the larger page? WikiProject Feminism currently lists the Domestic Violence article as C-Class, High-Importance so the imput of the Feminism members will be very important for the future of the Domestic Violence and Pregnancy addition. Cshaase ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am creating an entry on “Household Bargaining,” which will specifically explore the subject of gender relations in intra-household bargaining and decision-making. Wikipedia currently has articles on Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power but these articles only address bargaining in terms of the economic, labor and/or global market, and they fail to acknowledge the role bargaining plays within a household. The existing articles also fail to acknowledge the traditional inequality between men and women in household decision-making, which is why I thought this addition might fall under the WikiProject Feminism umbrella.Bina_Agarwal
The inspiration for this entry comes from Bina Agarwal's work in feminist economics and her study on intra-household bargaining [7], yet the existing entry for Agarwal does not substantially address this important subject.
Do any Feminism WikiProject members have thoughts on this subject or suggestions for related sources? I was planning on making an entirely new entry instead of including it in the more market and economics oriented "Bargaining" and "Inequality of Bargaining Power" pages, but does anyone think I should do otherwise? Mfandersen ( talk) 01:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Wikipedia policy so please excuse me if there is some mistake in my post.
I am referring to the page "Feminist movement". On that page it states that "At the UN's Pan Pacific Southeast Asia Women's Association 21st International Conference in 2001 it was stated that "in the world as a whole, women comprise 51 percent of the population, do 66 percent of the work, receive 10 percent of the income and own less than one percent of the property"
It goes on to provide a citation. I accessed the citation, which of course repeats the often stated claim that "women do 66% of the world's work". However, like all of the other websites which make this claim, it provides no evidence, research or study for this statement.
I have searched significantly on the internet to try to find the original research, but I cannot find any evidence to support this claim. All of the websites merely make this claim without any backup reference.
I think that this statement and the citation should be removed since it is unverified information. There is no evidence to suggest that women do 66% of the world's work. Continuing to keep it in this article is disinformation/ misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.127.66 ( talk) 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this raises a major issue about what wikipedia should do when a factual claim is made, which has no evidence to support it. Women readers, feminists, etc., I challenge you to find any study which proves this claim. 175.100.127.66 ( talk) 08:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I'm glad you mentioned about the UN... I kept asking myself why you were mentioning the UN, until I realized that the organization in the link is not the UN. It is an NGO/ non- profit organization. So the text of the article is actually incorrect. I think I'm going to go edit that now. @Aronoel- could you provide more detail, or which data fields to check in the UNICEF database? I looked at that briefly but that data on men and women's labor is not one of the indicators available under "women". I will check it again. Anyone else had more luck finding a study or data showing the "66%" figure? 175.100.127.94 ( talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:EA 175.100.127.94 ( talk) 00:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the 66% figure, that is clearly stated as if it is 66% of the whole. That is a different kind of statement than "what is the percent difference between men and women's work, when men's work is held at a constant 100%?" I have written to two UN agencies and they have not provided any source for the claim. Since they do not have any data or solid research about women's work as a total percentage of 100% on a global scale, I would say that they have no competency in that area. Unreliable source, in that specific context and in relation to that subject matter.