Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page Members Resources


More categories up for deletion/discussion[edit]

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism#Article alerts. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

General discussion?[edit]

I confess I get confused on category deletions like these sometimes and who has time to look at them all. Is there some general pattern or dubious principle we should be aware of to motivate us to look further? Thanks. CM-DC surprisedtalk 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:EGRS contains the guidance around gendered categories. There are several things to be aware of (1) Normally, we don't do gender + whatever intersections - you have to establish that the gender + {topic} is notable and discussed in multiple RS (2) In the particular Canadian case, there aren't any other instances of {Women} from {Province}/{City}/{State} - we do have intersections around {gender} + {certain jobs}, but not classifying people by {Gender} + {location}, with the exception of country-level boundaries. Another general rule is to not create last-rung categories - where you are splitting the last level of a category by gender - the reason is that this tends to ghettoize women, and those of you who followed the women novelists mess remember what a brouhaha that caused. I've done a lot of work in de-ghettoizing categories (I did Category:Female duellists yesterday), and developed an algorithm here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#Deghettoization_algorithm that those interested in deghettoizing can use, but in some cases it's frankly better to delete the categories if they are more likely than not to lead to ghettoization (or if they violate WP:EGRS). Properly dealing with non-diffusing categories, which most gender-based (and ethnic/religious/sexuality) categories need to be is actually quite complex, as you can tell by reading the algorithm. Therefore, consensus at CFD seems to set a relatively high bar for ethnic/sexuality/gender/religion-based categories. I'm really hoping to get more support around dynamic category intersection, which would allow us to do {gender} + {arbitrary topic} without the need to actually categorize thousands of articles as such, but for now not many people have expressed interest in helping - drop a note on my talk page if you'd like to assist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
But that applies to any category, so I'm not sure why it would be an argument to keep this particular one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statistics about deletion of women biography categories[edit]

During the two weeks period starting October 30, 2013 there have been 24 women-biographyCategories nominated for "discussion" compared to only 35 non-gendered CfDs. Since there are far less women-related categories to start with, this should be cause for alarm. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I ran the statistics on this, and got a different result. I looked at all CFDs since October 24, and then filtered to just categories that were meant to contain people; then tagged each category with a "gender". I found 22 "female" categories, "23 "Male" categories, and 62 "neutral" categories that were nominated for discussion (this should really be 82, since there was a group nom of Honorable degree recipients). So, I'm not sure what exactly is the cause for alarm. A large number of the "women" cats nominated were from a tree that you yourself very recently started in Canada, which is basically a duplicate of Category:Women in Canada by province or territory‎. It's hard to know for sure, but there are likely more "Women/female" specific categories than male/men specific ones overall in the tree - in either case, there are something like 6-8,000 categories for each.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that you don't see the problem with 22 women-related categories being discussed for deletion in the last couple of weeks because you're specifically the one who nominated a dozen of them to be deleted. Your chart doesn't address that you've made the lion's share of nominations involving women here as well as being the editor responsible for nominating categories about feminists and rape victims for deletion. Maybe you find this too small a point to mention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to say I nominated several of them, and I've nominated many other categories for discussion over the years. I do a lot of maintenance on categories, and sometimes, deleting or merging categories is the best way to keep the system working. I've also, in the past few weeks, populated and deghettoized Category:Female explorers, Category:Female travelers, Category:Women_travel_writers and Category:Female_duellists as well as a few others, in some cases adding dozens of more bios to these categories. I personally think we shouldn't genderize everything, it makes categorization more difficult and is more likely to lead to ghettoization - this is my experience from looking at hundreds of gendered categories over the past 6 months - the vast majority of them just end up segregating women, which caused a massive hoopla when it happened with women novelists. I'm currently working on a proposal to get rid of the down-to-the-lowest-level genderization of acting categories that is now going on, which I find excessive (e.g. Category:American telenovela actresses, Category:Actresses from Phoenix, Arizona, Category:Male_actors_from_Kansas_City,_Missouri), etc - we got rid of the "women writers by state" categories, and I think we don't need this level of split for actresses and male actors either. I'd really prefer we just used simple category intersections instead. You make it seem like me nominating Category:Murdered feminists is something bad (you'll notice it is trending towards a strong delete, so I'm not the only one who thinks murder victim + ideology is a bad mix), but it's not - it's simply an intersection we shouldn't start categorizing by; the nomination of Category:Radical lesbian feminists is also b/c it's a violation of WP:EGRS, which says you should not have last-run categories, which this one is. (the last rung rule is why we don't, and shouldn't, have categories like Category:Lesbian voice actors from New York. The reason I've nominated the Category:Rape victims category is because I don't think every woman who has been raped needs to have this tag at the bottom of her page - I think it's a BLP nightmare personally - there's a huge difference from coming out publicly in one interview and saying you've been raped, and having "rape victim" alongside "author" and "born 1945" and "from Seattle, WA" - as if being raped DEFINES you - per IAR, for this particular category, I think the potential costs outweigh the benefits - if we add it to a victim and they see it there, they may be insulted; if we take it off a particular victim's category, they may think wikipedia is saying "You aren't really a rape victim" - it's a no-win scenario. In any case, if you have thoughts on the categories, please comment at CFD, we could always use more editors there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Simple category intersections don't include significant entries flagged by editors. 2. You removed the hatting on this chart and it seems disruptive and distracting. It gives the impression that you're trying to drown out discussion by hosing raw data at people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the one who started this discussion, I simply added data to it that contradicts the initial assertion of "this should be a cause for alarm". If we're going to have a discussion of what gets nominated at CFD, let's start with the raw data. Stop making bogus accusations of "drowning out discussion". Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean about category intersection missing "significant" entries. Category intersection will always be more inclusive than any specific intersection tags that are placed. If there's an error, it can be easily corrected.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Elaqueate Now that the noise here has died down, I wonder if you could explain in simple words what hatting means. I have been around Wikipedia for over six years and I am still struggling with the jargon. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"Hatting" usually refers to adding hatnote templates atop articles, though I don't know how it was used above. Could have meant "heading". czar  16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh I think I was using imprecise jargon myself. I saw someone write about "hatting" when they add some header and footer text to a discussion or table to collapse it. Help:Collapsing I think this table including all of article recommendations could be collapsed in some way, whether it's called hatting or collapsing or whatever. The point this table supports could have been made in a sentence, or a link to a table, or a collapsed table, instead of a wall of listings. I tried to collapse it earlier but was reverted. If someone else responds with another table, this discussion would be even more difficult to follow for a new reader. How do people feel about collapsing the 100-line table below so that it's one line that can be expanded? __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hatting is usually used to refer to use of {{Hat}} tags to shut down or close off one aspect of discussion, but can also be used for collapsing (instead of Hatting), although it's slightly imprecise. I don't Think We need to collapse that section just yet, it can remain until we get to the bottom of the issue Ottawa brought here. Feel free to add to the table columns or rows as needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Obviously you want your table to dominate the talk page, but maybe people have a different opinion. I believe that if someone responded to one of your questions with a 100 line table, you would have collapsed it in a heartbeat. Please collapse it if requested. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think if we continue this, we will spend more time talking about collapsing the table than the contents of the table or the issue at hand. In general, it is fine to collapse your own comments, or to hat comments that are off-topic, but it is not generally considered permissible to collapse other's comments just because you believe they are too long, or at least you are welcome to try but should drop the stick if reverted. I suggest you drop the issue and engage in the actual discussion which Ottawa opened.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I collapsed your list in the interest of clarity, you reverted. I left it alone until I was pinged here. If you think you're not deliberately obstructing discussion, fine, but a table of raw data wouldn't universally be considered "a comment". It just seems a cheap way to hide the fact that women's categories put up for discussion spiked in the first half of November by adding undated raw listings from October. But I'm not going to collapse your list, if you think it proves something as it is. But the fact that a second section had to be started might tell you something about how helpful it's been. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinion sought[edit]

Should all women-related categories be part of this wikiproject?

Background:

  • Many women’s categories are being nominated for "discussion"
  • Some of these nominations are showing up in this wikiproject’s alert section
    • Categories that belong to this wikiproject show up in the alerts section when they are nominated
    • Women’s categories that do not belong to this wikiproject will not show up when they are nominated for "discussion"

So, do all women-related categories belong to this wikiproject? If not is there another project that encompasses all of them? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There are at least 5400 categories with "women" in the title and over 1200 with "female" in the title [1] - from women's sports, to women writers, to women activists, to just plain biography categories for women (e.g. American women). I really don't think all of these should be added to the feminism project, as most of these categories have little to do with feminism. I'd suggest women's sports categories should go to the relevant sports projects, women activists/etc categories should go to feminism, women's literature should go to literature projects and perhaps women's history projects, and individual bios of women should go to biography project, any relevant country/field projects, and only feminism if the woman in question is a figure of note for feminism. One specific example is Category:Princesses - I don't think this isn't that closely related to feminism, I think adding it to the royalty project is largely sufficient, we have a large tree of royalty-related categories and assigning to that project is sufficient. I would make the same arguments for men's categories; I think it would be silly to add "Kings" to Wikiproject:Men's rights for the same reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: I created Category:Category-Class Feminism articles and Category:Category-Class Women's History articles and updated the templates accordingly; once the jobs refresh the templates those categories should be populated with all of the categories tagged across these projects, but we may have to wait a few days or even weeks for that to happen (sigh).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

More Women categories nominated[edit]

Not sure if this is a of interest here? There is a whole new batch of women's categories nominated for "discussion", they should show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Article alerts soon. By the way, women's categories are non-diffusing, which means that they are in additi0n to the other categories, not a replacement. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter to the infobox for films[edit]

The discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter may be of interest to members of this project.  Sandstein  21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting that discussion Sandstein. I think it would also be worth exploring setting up a Bechdel test property for films over at Wikidata. Gobōnobō + c 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Girl power! Press kits? Not long to go now.[edit]

Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism mentions press kits being sent out. On the talk page of this imminent event, someone asked how to obtain these press kits.

Does anyone know? Please help preserve the legacy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

They mentioned it in their last email to satellite coordinators. I thought the main coordinators might see the talk page sooner since their email response times have been lengthy. czar  02:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi I am one of the organizers and can send you a press kit. Please email me at dhoward@metro.org Thanks!OR drohowa (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Article SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen marked for deletion 27 January 2014[edit]

Apologies for not knowing how to do this correctly. SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen was marked for deletion 27 January 2014. There currently are 3 keep votes of 3 votes total. --Ronja (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads[edit]

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal[edit]

I am a rather new editor and have been working on the page for The Courage to Heal a resource for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I am trying to get the page tagged for being non neutral, but since I am the only editor working on the page who feels the page is biased the tag keeps getting taken off. The editors currently working on the page have stated that "Bass and Davis got it wrong" and the page seems to written with this assumption (which is the viewpoint of a few but certainly not by all). As this is a resource for survivors of sexual abuse it feels especially important to have a page that accurately conveys the content of the book. I would so appreciate feedback on how to improve the page (I found a number of sources but they have been edited down to a single sentence by the other editors) as well the support of other feminist editors. Thoughts? Suggestions?MorningGlory3 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The comment above is an example of forum shopping: see WP:FORUMSHOP. MorningGlory3 already started a thread about the article at the neutral point of view noticeboard, but it doesn't look as though it's going their way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of this rule. My intention is to bring attention to the page to see if more experienced editors would be interested in working on it. MorningGlory3 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Clean up an article?[edit]

Hey, would any of you be interested in helping clean up the article Women's Rights are Human Rights? It originally focused on the Clinton speech, but it seems like the term has been around for quite a while. I added some sourcing but it needs a lot more than what it has now. I'd prefer that someone more familiar with writing feminism type articles edited it and cleaned it rather than myself, as I really don't entirely know what I'm doing. I could bang out a quick, shallow article but it requires the editing prowess of someone who really understands the term (and knows the sources!) beyond the typical quick overview given in the average classroom. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Gender neutral categories[edit]

I think Category:Fictional swordsmen should be called Category:Fictional sword fighters and Category:Fictional giants should be split into giants and giantesses. I think both of these would be valid changes meeting with fictional police officers and fictional fire fighters. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I second this. Where would we go to start a consensus to changing this? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP Countering Systemic Bias in the Signpost[edit]

Comment below is reposted. Djembayz (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias 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. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles related to dowry in India[edit]

The following articles seem to be subject to frequent POV-pushing and addition of uncited original research:

Unfortunately, it seems that very few people are watching these pages, so please add them to your watchlist if you would like to help keep an eye on them. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

International Women's day 8th March event[edit]

Anyone want to join us in London on the 8th March to mark International women's day by creating/improving articles on Women archaeologists?

The Petrie Museum has invited WMUK in to train some of their people on the 8th March, and they've just told me they have some spare places for any of you who can get to London. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sonia Pressman Fuentes[edit]

She was apparently one of the founders of NOW. However, the article has zero independent sources. It is currently sourced only to her website and a very brief "Letter to the Editor" which she wrote to a magazine in Florida. Talk:Sonia Pressman Fuentes contains an edit request to add a much longer biography copied from her website with OTRS permission which I declined as it had zero independent sources and a very unencyclopedic, promotional tone. However, if references can be found, the information could be used to expand the article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential new article[edit]

Hi all! I'm writing to present the idea of creating a new article about the gender inequalities in positions of power and how women are so vastly underrepresented in positions of power in many areas including government, industry, international organizations, science, academia, even sports and popular culture. I'm writing on this project page to hopefully get some feedback on people's opinions on this potential article. I would be doing so as a part of a class assignment. Check out my user page for more information. Thank you so much!!

Cnicholson12 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cnicholson12: Rather than creating a new article on this topic (which is extremely broad), you should add relevant information to the articles that already cover these issues—specifically Sexism and Women in government. Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential Additions to Transnational Feminism Article[edit]

I am looking to make substantial editions to content and organization of the Transnational Feminism article. I am doing this as a project for my Gender and Economic Development class at the University of Utah. My plan is to first discuss areas such as the history of the topic, theories such as feminist theory, and transnational theory. Secondly, I will look to cover areas that transnational feminist are concerned with such as imperialism, colonialism, nationalism and how these interact with gender, race, etc. Lastly, I will try to give transnational feminism an everyday context by discussing activism and movements around labor rights, violence against women, and social empowerment. Any feedback, suggestions, etc., please let me know. Dougsimpsonwiki (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Help expanding an article?[edit]

Hey, need some help on the article about Belle Knox, the Duke student that was outed as being a porn star. It's up for AfD and I'm tentative about the notability since it could be WP:ONEEVENT, but the coverage is fairly wide. I've done some cleaning but I think that it'd really benefit from someone from here coming on to do some additional editing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

New article = Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence[edit]

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Cirt (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Violence against women by country[edit]

I have just added this project's banner to more than a dozen categories in the Category talk:Violence against women by country family. Before I continue tagging more, I am just wondering if anyone here cares? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think banners help with WikiProject visibility. It's not done as much now though as in the past. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project[edit]

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 12:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, if you don't want to see content or articles listed here removed you might work on them to correct issues (which I assume are too many direct quotes not in quotation; or even too many in quotation.) A real long list that does have a few things feminists might be interested in. Check it out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Patriarchal Code[edit]

I'm writing an article titled 'The Patriarchal Code'. I've been told several times that I'm not 'neutral' enough. I think this is because the research took over 20 years to collect 20,000 names and symbols embedding male bias and I'm a little overwhelmed by having to present the concept of a patriarchal code in an article.

The topic is multidisciplinary. It touches on feminism a little but it is really about making true-to-reality symbols and names to develop rationality, knowledge and moral civilization.

In a new message I was told I was presenting an argument. I don't think I know how to state the basic premise without making as argument. I need help here.Louise Goueffic (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Louise Goueffic. From your comment it seems you've conducted research over 20 years on this issue and are trying to present it on wikipedia - am I understanding you correctly?--Cailil talk 12:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I see this has already been discussed here too. Can you verify that the details given here are indeed true Louise--Cailil talk 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversy. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:SCUM Manifesto/Vote for categorizing this article under "Violence against men"[edit]

Requesting other perspectives in this debate over whether the SCUM Manifesto should be added to the category Violence against men.

Join the debate here --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Radical Feminism"[edit]

Join the debate here --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)