Talk:Feminism in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Feminism in India has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
November 22, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

Revisions[edit]

I went through and changed a couple of sentences to make them flow better, nothing very major.

I was wondering whether the article could be easier to read. There are run on sentences that are convoluted to the reader. This can be easily remedied by breaking down long sentences. I also have a suggestion concerning content. I think that the beginnings of the feminist movement should go before before history, for purely logical reasons.

Montero.Wendy61 (talk)


Feedback from Govt Class[edit]

I wonder if you might not use the definition of feminism from Wikipedia and link to it for the first line. So it would be become

Feminism in India is a set of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for Indian women.

You wouldn’t have to quote it since Wikipedia material can be reused presumably in other wiki entries.

Other than that I think your intro is good.

One of the major issues that is raised in the discussion page is how this entry should differ from Women in India which is a pretty good article all ready. I would like you two to sit down and talk about this. Decide what makes sense to have in your entry versus in the Women in India one. Then really focus on Feminism in India.

Also, don’t be afraid to edit other people’s work. In fact, you pretty much have to do this. Integrate your work into theirs and move things around so that there is an internal logic, for example, see my comments about history of the movement below.

I made an edit and inserted the words United Nations Decade for Women hear the start, can you link that to the Wikipedia entry?

I wonder if the first paragraph of defining feminism isn’t really about history, so shouldn’t maybe be moved or cut if repetitive.

I wonder if the discussion about the concepts of feminism and equality shouldn’t be moved up closer to the section on feminism in India. It seems they are both about defining the movements goals.

You should definitely figure out a way to put all the historical sections together. It doesn’t make sense to have a history section and then later on to have a section on the beginnings of the movement. They should be combined.

I would add subtitles under Obstacles – birth ration, marriage, etc.

I really like your adding a list of notable Indian feminists.

Be sure to fix how you cite multiple times. I can help you with this if you come to my office hours.

Prof M Johnson (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Feminism?[edit]

I question whether this the correct title for the article. Much of it relates to general indian women's movement (especially the historical part), movements that were not explicitly feminists. There should be an article on Indian feminism, but starting with the actual formulaton of feminism in India. --Soman 15:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I partly agree. I think it should be merged with Women in India with relevant bits added as a section. That way, there will be no POV forking. Maybe there is no need for a separate article on Indian Feminism other than a very big section on Women in India. Also, this was Women in India will have lots of useful info and it can become an FA :). Rumpelstiltskin223 00:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What about Gender issues in India? --Soman 15:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Feminism in India and Women in India can be merged into one title, but I think the new article should be called "Indian Feminist Movements". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TroubledTraveler (talkcontribs) 09:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

Please note that the user who added the tag has not left any comments in this discussion, and has attempted to delete similar tags on the page said user created, Sexism against men in India. See Special:Contributions/Cupidcobra. 98.226.245.252 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Enhancing This Article[edit]

I am conducting a research project on women and feminism in India for a Cultural Anthropology class I am taking. For the class, we are required to write a research paper on our chosen topic and then use it to either edit or create a Wikipedia page. Since a Wikipedia page on "Feminism in India" already exists, I am going to be adding my material to this page when I have finalized my work within the next day or so. I just want to clarify that I have several reliable and legitimate resources, and would really appreciate if whoever reviews this page could not immediately delete my work as I contribute it, seeing as the final product will count toward a large percentage of my grade for the class. It might take me a few tries to perfect the page, so I just want to make sure my work will not be deleted as I am trying to finalize things. Thank you!

Cesparros (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)ClaireCesparros (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Additions to Existing Feminism Page[edit]

Hi! I am taking a class on, 'Politics of Developing Nations,' and as part of our final assignment I have chosen the topic of Feminism in India. As there is already an informational page that exists, I will be adding more references and information (possibly adding one or two more topics) to the current page. I will add more information to Feminism in the context of Politics in India and the different types of feminist symbolism used to unite the population, such as the Mahabharata. The post about Muslim women in India needs to be refined - Islam instead of Muslim religion. The statements of: "They are considered the most disadvantaged, impoverished, and politically marginalized group within Indian society, as well as the most economically and socially vulnerable. The majority of Muslim women are never employed outside the home,due to misinterpretation of Islam.In Islam women has equal rights as well as men" appear to be biased and un-backed claims, so I aim to find more information on the topic and edit it. All the articles I intend to use will be from reliable, scholarly resources. Thank you!

Pernian Pfaheem (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


Over the next couple of months, I will be working (along with Pernian) on improving this article as part of the Politics of Developing Nations course at Mills College. I hope to focus on adding more references and citations where appropriate, since this is needed. I also feel that some of the information here could be organized in a more useful way, as there are parts that do read more like a research paper than an encyclopedia entry. It seems that there is some good information here, so let's try to coalesce it into a more readable article. Any other suggestions for further improvements will be considered and appreciated. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kit and Pernian, your ideas sound very helpful. Indeed, you will be doing a fair amount of editing and improving, particularly with references. I like Pernian's idea as well to add new sections as needed. Prof M Johnson (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Here is a proposed bibliography for upcoming edits to this article.

  • Gangoli, Geetanjali. Indian Feminisms : Law, Patriarchies and Violence in India. Ashgate Publishing Group; England. 2007.
  • Bhaskaran, Suparna. Made in India : Decolonizations, Queer Sexualities, Trans/National Projects. Palgrave Macmillan; Gordonsville, VA. 2004.
  • Ali, Azra Asghar. The Emergence of Feminism Among Indian Muslim Women, 1920-1947. Oxford University Press; New York. 2000.
  • Ray, Raka. Fields of Protest : Women's Movements in India. University of Minnesota Press; Minneapolis, MN. 1999.

This bibliography is subject to change and expand over the upcoming month or so. Thanks. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources you've compiled for the bibliography look great so far! The addition to the article looks good too. I would recommend splitting longer paragraphs up into multiple paragraphs and making more use of internal links so that the article will be easier to follow. Neelix (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the header from the article that said more references were needed since they have now been added Prof M Johnson (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Harvard citation[edit]

For sources that are cited more than once, please consider using e.g. Wikipedia:Harvard_citation_template_examples#With_p.. Wiki-uk (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


Peer Edit[edit]

This article seems to have become fairly extensive! Most of my edits were made to help clarify sentences. Several times I took one very long sentence and broke it down into several smaller sentences. One concern I have is that there are still entire paragraphs without citations. For example, the 3rd paragraph under the section "Defining Feminism in the Indian context" provides pretty specific information, but it is not cited. Also, the entire section "History - Second Phase: 1915-1947" has only one citation. Within that same section, the last paragraph, I was confused by the statement "The state adopted a patronizing role towards women." It is said within the context that the government had revised the constitution to provide rights for women. Further explanation of the statement within its context would be great. Finally, the very last sentence under the section "Feminism and Sexuality in India" should either be completely removed or rewritten. Other than that, great contributions by Pfaheem and Kit.i.t.! Chelbel05 (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good article. It seems that the other peer editor did a great job of going through paragraphs and giving you suggestions on copy editing. I changed some minor things like capitalizations, etc. I think my main suggestion to you guys would be to outline your page better. I think the sections need some sub-sections and some of the main sections can be combined under a larger broader section, with subsections so that it will flow more easily and would look nicer to the reader. For example you could combine Hindu Women and Muslim Women under a larger section of Women in India. I like that you included a photo, I changed it for you Pernian from a gallery style to a regular image style. I think that if you perhaps include more photos, it will make the article more aesthetically pleasing.

The other thing that I noticed that your article needs is that you need to make sure that you reference back to your resources and site them.

Miriamao (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chelbel and Miriamao above; you've been doing a great job with this article, Pfaheem and Kit.i.t! I'm excited that you want to submit this article for good status. Before doing so, there are a few things that are bound to come up in the nomination discussion that would expedite the process if they are taken care of beforehand. There are a couple "citation needed" tags in the "Second Phase: 1915–1947" section; any information on the article that is not sourced should either become sourced or be removed. The article could also make use of more images. Some image options can be found at the Wikimedia Commons, such as this image of Amrita Pritam. All images should be given alt text; you can read about how to provide images with alt text here. Citation 19 should follow the same citation format as the other citations. The four sources mentioned at the end of the "References" section should either be separated off into a "Bibliography" section if they are being used to source information in the article or else separated off into a "Further reading" section if they are not. The Birth control movement in the United States article provides a good example; that article is probably the closest analogue to this article that has already achieved good status. The talk page of that article shows the GA review, which would be worth reading before submitting this article for a GA review. There are a few entire paragraphs in the article that contain no citations; the information in these paragraphs is probably sourced by the citations in the surrounding paragraphs, but this should be clarified by including the citations in the citationless paragraphs as well. The words "Feminism" and "Feminists" are not capitalized in the main text of the article, so they should not be capitalized in section headings either. Also, the "Hindu Feminism" and "Muslim Feminism" should be subsections of the same section, perhaps named "Theology" in accordance with the Feminist theology article that lists Hindu feminism and Islamic feminism as subtopics. Again, you're doing an awesome job with this article. Based on the work you've been doing so far, I'm confident that you can get the article up to good status. Neelix (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This section is confusing: "Colonial essentialization of 'Indian culture' and the reconstruction of Indian womanhood as the epitome of that culture through social reform movements. This resulted in political theorization in the form of nationalism rather than as feminism alone." The first sentence doesn't even seem to be a sentence, and the second sentence requires some explanation. Is this saying that nationalism was incorporated into feminist politics? If so, how was that accomplished and what effects did it have on the movement? Kaldari (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Feminism in India/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

  • See also - make it 2 or 3 columns. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Done! Made it two columns. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Citations should have page numbers - This is not a hard requirement for GA status, but ideally the citations should include page numbers. The citations, now, are to entire books, so it is impossible for a reader to (1) validate that the fact is correct; or (2) find the page to gather more information about the topic. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed this for several, but not all, of the citations. I intend to continue working on this over the next few days.Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Book names in italics - Names of books, journals, magazines need to be in italics. Article names (within a journal) should "be in quotes". This applies to the References and Further Reading sections. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed this, but it could be double-checked.Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wording - ".... law has been largely neglected..." -> "largely ignored". --Noleander (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Slang - "...huge part of India and its people..."  : "huge" is too slangy. Try ".. an important part of Indian culture ...". --Noleander (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wording - "...to birth a male child..." -> "... to produce a male child..." --Noleander (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • One source per paragraph? - Best practices are to have a footnote (citation) for every sentence that is not trivial. For GA status, it is maybe okay to have a single footnote at the end of a paragraph, but that is not ideal. If you put a single footnote at the end of a sentence paragraph, you are suggesting that the entire paragraph is supported by the single citation. Is that your intention? --Noleander (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed this in a couple of places, but this still needs work.Kit.i.t. (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Cite needed - Sentences " Caste-community identities intensify all other hierarchies. The polytheistic Hindu pantheon provides revered images of women as unique and yet complementary to those of male deities." are after a citation, and have no footnote. What is the source for those two sentences? --Noleander (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Admittedly I'm unsure of the source of these sentences; since I do not feel they particularly add to the article, would it be appropriate to just remove them? Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if you cannot find sources to substantiate the material; or if you believe the material is not within the scope of the article, it should be removed. If the material seems important, spend a few minutes trying to find a source for it. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed these uncited sentences.Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictures - I see there is one picture, but the article is large enough to support 3 or 4. Can you find more freely-available pictures that are relevant to the article? --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added several pictures from Wikimedia Commons. Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Lead - WP:LEAD suggests that the lead summarize the entire article, but not exceed 4 paragraphs. This lead is a bit skimpy. Try to make it larger and summarize all major sections/points of the article. --Noleander (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added two paragraphs to the lead.Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Alt text - All of the images should have alt text. You can read about how to add alt text here. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Alt text for images was a requirement for Featured Article status, but not for Good Article status. Am I mistaken? --Noleander (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Good captions are far more important than alt text. Most blind readers are actually annoyed at having to listen to both the caption and the alt text (from the feedback I've seen). Personally, I wouldn't include alt text as a GA requirement. Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Section headings - Common nouns, such as "ratio" in "Birth Ratio" and "feminists" in "Notable Indian Feminists," should not be capitalized in the section headings. Also, the "Muslim feminism" section heading should be made consistent with the Islamic feminism article. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Punctuation - The caption for the first standalone image is not a sentence, so it should not have a period at the end. Alos, the last sentence of the "Globalization" section should not have two periods at the end. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Notable Indian feminists - Each entry in this section should be sourced. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Done! Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


How to mark items "done"[edit]

When you address each of the issues above, please mark it "done" in the "reply here" area. Or, if you have any questions, or reasons why the change should not be made, explain in the "reply here" area. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the great help. My students really appreciate this as they are working on the article for a campus wiki project. Prof M Johnson (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to improve the lede, I recommend writing a single summary paragraph for each of the four main sections and ensuring that every subsection is represented by at least one sentence in its broader section's corresponding paragraph in the lede. Great job so far! This article is nearing good status. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your helpful suggestions! Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Final tasks[edit]

Kit: Two final tasks, and then I'll mark the article as GA status:

  • Footnote link - Footnotes #33, #35, and #38 are broken (at least at this moment in time). Could you double-check all the external URL links in the footnotes, and if they are broken/obsolete, then remove the link and just leave the title/date/author of the document in its place? Or find an updated URL that works? --Noleander (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Ambiguous link - link shetty needs to be dis-ambiguated. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Never mind ... that is a legitimate link. --Noleander (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've done a great job! --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the links! Kit.i.t. (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, and a world of difference compared to the Caste politics in India which I guess was part of the same assignment, and which I had to fail recently. Simply looking at the responsiveness of the editor(s) here and there shows one of the major strength of those here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph[edit]

Despite “on-paper” advancements, many problems still remain which inhibit women from fully taking advantage of new rights and opportunities in India. For example, India’s constitution states that women are a “weaker section” of the population, and therefore need assistance to function as said equals.

The above paragraph is a bit confusing. From a modern Western perspective, being called the "weaker section" of the population would be a cause of outrage for feminists. Thus one would assume that the 2nd sentence is an example of discriminatory attitudes towards women in India. In actuality, getting this language added to the Indian constitution was seen as a major win for feminists at the time (1947). It basically gives constitutional protection to affirmative action programs for women within India. So the wording here is confusing. It is not clear if you are citing the constitutional language as an example of an "on-paper advancement" (which it is), or an example of a "problem that still remains" (what a Westerner would assume). Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the second sentence so that it is presented within a clearer context. Kaldari (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

source chapter prospect[edit]

A source that covers feminism in India looks interesting. It's a chapter by Sumi Madhok in Roces, Mina, & Louise P. Edwards, eds., Women's Movements in Asia: Feminisms and Transnational Activism (London or Oxon: Routledge, pbk. 2010 (ISBN 978-0-415-48703-0)) (ed. Roces assoc. prof., School of History and Philosophy, University of New S. Wales, Sydney, Australia, & ed. Edwards prof. modern China, Univ. of Hong Kong, both per p. [i] & cover IV). If someone has the time and more national expertise than I have, it may be worth adding to this article. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)