This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I haven't seen this, but and this was from a couple of years ago. I agree the page has minimal information and is in need of expansion. However, I think the topic actually has room for expansion way beyond what is properly contained in the Feminism article. A history of events like the Bernard Conference, the Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance, the Meese Commission, and the rise of FACT and its role in Booksellers v. Hudnut are all topical here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Minor edit, but thought I'd note: changed "transwomen" to "trans women" as per the actual title of the linked page. Gabe (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That's useful, but, because the linked-to article's title is in the singular and not the plural but the plural is useful in this article, I redid it from the form [[text displayed on this page as a link]] to the form [[formal name of destination|text displayed on this page as a link]], using the pipe character (a vertical line or broken vertical line, on one keyboard and maybe typically on the same keycap as the reverse slash).
Also, unless you meant to answer a previous topic on the talk page, it's clearer when starting a topic to click the "New section" link at the top of the talk page. I gave the title; feel free to edit it if you wish.
The inclusion of trans women in the first paragraph of this article is confusing because trans women and how they relate to this topic are never again brought up or clarified in this article. Can trans issues as they apply to the sex wars be expanded in the article since they are presented as being part of the scope of the article? Lostxero (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The article seems balanced to me. Perhaps a significant source is missing, but if anyone knows such a source, please post it, and the same is true of both sides represented in the article. That supplying of a source can be done at any time and without a nonneutrality template. If the template is needed, please post a more specific explanation about what is supposedly missing. Otherwise, the template appears to be pointless. I propose to delete it. I will wait a week for comment. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The article has several places where POV is obvious. Examples include some of the descriptive language used, as well as partial inaccuracies in the subject's historical context, its notables, and some of the chosen terminology. I think these factors do lend the article a somewhat biased tone. Enough to warrant the POV tag, but nothing that I can see that would be the cause of major dispute if corrected/changed. I am willing to help edit to clean it up a bit, but until further editing is done (and further discussion takes place?) I oppose removing the template for now. Ongepotchket (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's specific. Go ahead and best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the article is written fairly neutrally and well-balanced, but something about the very existence of it under this title bothers me. It suggests that in the 1980s, the feminist movement was fiercely divided and tearing itself apart over these issues, almost to the exclusion of anything else. While there are no doubt some for whom that is an accurate view, I'm sure there are others who would say it doesn't reflect their experiences of feminism in the 1980s: that most feminists did not take part in these 'wars', and that to focus on these divisions minimises the unified purpose of the movement. (As someone who was too young to be involved, I can't take either side there.) That said, it's clear from the sources that these issues did provoke serious dispute at the time and the term 'Sex Wars' was used to describe them, so perhaps it should be left as it is. Robofish (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on where I saw the movement: The term is strong if one posits (as some do) that "war" is essentially unlimited and doesn't apply to mere political disagreements (and one feminist said we don't have a war since women don't have the means to wage one), but the term may be sourceable, although more from outside the antiporn movement, in which case it's probably appropriate for the article title (other terms can redirect to it). The hostility between the two sides was more than between groups that simply differed on whether, say, employment rights or reproductive rights should get priority. In the sex/porn divide, the side that did not prioritize antiporn work was often sympathetic to the general issue but needed news media to report on their work, such as on the right to seek a career, without belittling it and thus couldn't very well oppose the First Amendment protection of a free press while the antiporn workers could find no First Amendment protection for rape and abuse either by themselves or considering that porn and violence denied women equal participation in society, including careers. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
There's been a lot of work done on this article over the past year and as far as I'm aware any language that is obviously POV has been removed. Has anyone got any specific POV issues with the article as stands? If people want to correct, or suggest things for me to correct, that would be great. Otherwise perhaps we could remove the tag? --Dakinijones (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and have done so. The original reason for the POV tag addition (2012-08-04T20:56:05) was only given in the revision comment: (the text highly favors anti-pornography feminists, and at points actively makes arguments for that perspective. At the same time, the view of the pro-sex feminists are so under explained to seem at times like an afterthought.). Since then there has been discussion here, and it seems that edits since then have resolved that problem. If there are remaining issues, please discuss them here and/or fix them. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)