Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism

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

Clarifying inclusion criteria for the category "Violence against women"[edit]

To make the violence against women category's inclusion criteria more clear, I previously suggested on the Violence against women category talk page the addition of the following info box, which is similar to the info box explaining the inclusion criteria for the category Violence against men [1]. I decided to post here as well, because I have not gotten any feedback yet on that talk page, and I don't think it gets much traffic. I thought this wikiproject might have interest in the category. This is the proposed info box to clarify the category:

Before boldly editing the category main page, I wanted to see if there was any input or objections.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a step in the right direction although "sexual violence" may not necessarily be gender based violence in every instance; would we include acts where a woman is the perpetrator of the violence? If yes, then I'm OK with its inclusion. We may want to add a guideline that reliable sources must use the term "gender based violence". Likewise, if this gains traction, we might want to do the same for geographic subsections of VAW.Mattnad (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume Mattnad meant "when a women is the perpetrator of the violence against another women (or female child)?" Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Considering the proposed info box puts no restriction on the perpetrator, I think regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, if the violence meets the inclusion criteria detailed, it would qualify as violence against women, regardless of the biological sex or gender identity of the perpetrator of the violence. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Anachronistic use of 'feminist'[edit]

I have been thinking about the use of the category and subcategories of Category:Feminists, and generally the lead section description "was a X-nationality feminist" for 19th and early 20th Century people.

The "1st wave, 2nd and 3rd wave feminist" classification is not used globally (although even in English the word feminism is much younger than some people we call such in Wikipedia). In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Finnish women's rights advocates were literally called "women's issues' women" (kvinnosak). Feminist is used for a modern movement, not the one that advocated for the right to vote etc.

This comes in, as I'm about to soon create an article about a 1930s far-right female politician in Finland who also was a women's rights and temperance advocate. The word feminist feels especially ill-fitting here. Aren't women's rights advocate and suffragette better terms for that period of history? The problem is, only Category:Finnish feminists exists. --Pudeo' 00:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is not what anyone's opinion on WP is, the question is "How do sources define the person?". If sources call this person a suffragette then it is appropriate to list them in the a new Category:Finish suffragists (a sub category of Category:Suffragists_by_nationality). It would also be appropriate if this is a "women's issues campaigner" to list them in Category:feminists. This inclusion isn't mutually exclusive. Furthermore you would have a major problem NOT listing a suffragette as a feminist due to the fact that suffragettes are defined as feminists by a library of reliable sources, similarly for women's issues campaigners--Cailil talk 12:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The other problem of course, is what one wikipedian editor might call far right, another might call Christian centrist or another editor call libertarian and actual RS might use other terms. That's why we also use sources to describe their other political positions. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

photo of a naked five-year-old girl in wikipedia[edit]

recently i red the article about Lina Medina, youngest mother of the world (and so obviously victim of sexual violence). in the article was included a photo of her naked and pregnant. this is the image. (trigger warning: objectified pregnant naked child, medical photo) is there someone who wants to discuss that?--Alice d25 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To add to the context for this, Lina Medina is the youngest mother in the world at 5 years old and the image in the infobox was being used to demonstrate this severe medical anomoly that has not been repeated since; this is the only incident of it happening at all and the rarity of the situation I think is important to note. Not to mention this section header leads something to be desired in terms of context it provides. Tutelary (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've read the discussion. I've read the notes accompanying the image. And I don't know what it has to do with Feminism. I do see repeated attempts at censorship, using every possible tactic including accusing those in favour of including the image of supporting child pornography. It's already a very nasty discussion. When those who would claim to be seeking a clean life get active here things get very dirty. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please limit discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Photograph_of_naked.2C_pregnant_five-year-old_Lina_Medina or the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to limit discussions to other places, perhaps we need to remove this thread. It has nothing to do with feminism. It was simply forum shopping by one of our self-appointed censors. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It is an inappropriate image. This is a sexual abuse survivor. BLP or otherwise, we don't need to treat this person like she's a sideshow freak. She's obviously suffered enough. End of story. I cannot begin to express my utter disgust that anyone would even think to argue otherwise. Poor child! Have you no soul? Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I have no soul, and I try to think without making such certain assumptions and insisting that others who don't think like I do are disgusting. Anyway, did you see EvergreenFir's post above about discussing this elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and I commented there. Done here, I guess. Montanabw(talk) 07:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please review Hitachi Magic Wand[edit]

As part of a Quality improvement project, I've recently put the article Hitachi Magic Wand up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hitachi Magic Wand/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Slav women[edit]

On the Slavs page only one picture of a woman (Marie Curie) is used. I want to replace some of the male images with images of women, but I'm not sure which ones. I think Roza Shanina and Lyudmila Pavlichenko are good, and considering an image of Djokovic is used one of Maria Sharapova could be as well. All of these women are Russian though, and there should be more diversity. Any suggestions? Bridenh (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Serbian women, Category:Polish women (Marie Walewska comes to mind because I've seen Conquest (1937 film) a few times); Category:Slovak_women, Category:Croatian_women and Category:Bulgarian_women. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
So I changed it up a bit. Now only 8 out of 30 are women. I think I'm going to leave it at that for now though, wouldn't like to scare men by making the forthcoming matriarchy too obvious. Bridenh (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do this[edit]

Do you see a problem?

Almost the entire page is taken up by female pilots, despite them being a minority. Please remember Wikipedia's policies.

I'm going to assume it's someone here, because who else would be this interested in unbalancing the article in this very specific way? Please fix it.

Willhesucceed (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Never assume who did what. You can look through the revision history to find out who did what if you are so concerned about responsibility. Or the talk page history for clues. Perhaps there was a female aviators article that got AfD'd so someone just dumped the contents in there. Baybe a female aviators article needs creating. Or maybe a female pilot's husband did it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


Nominations are now open, in case anyone wants to take on the responsibility. Meanwhile, I hope those of us still ambulatory will participate in questioning and commenting on candidates regarding issues relevant to closing the gender gap and making Wikipedia a better place to edit for older people, shy people, civil people, people of color, academics, professionals, feminists and even assertive women like me ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article candidate[edit]

I've nominated an article related to Women's rights for Today's Featured Article candidacy, please see discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Irreplaceable. — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap task force arbitration[edit]

Is about to close. Interesting reading from a feminist perspective. Check it out here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Flesh out an article?[edit]

Hey, can anyone help with the article "On the Equality of the Sexes"? It was put up for AfD and I've sourced it to where I believe I've established notability, so that part isn't a problem. What we really need is someone (or several someones) who are familiar with the work that can flesh the article out to where it's more than a stub. I've put some sources on the article, but it needs some TLC from someone more familiar with writing feminism articles. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know if anyone has read this or not, but I really could use some help in fleshing the article out. I'm completely unfamiliar with the work and while I can do some stuff with the article, it would honestly be best if someone more experienced with writing articles like this and familiar with the work could come and help out. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny and feminist theory[edit]

Most of the "feminist theory" section of the Misogyny article has been deleted due to being unsourced. If anyone wants to try rewriting it with sources, that would be most helpful. Kaldari (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Feminism articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Priya's Shakti[edit]

Anyone here familiar with writing article's about graphic novels? This caught my eye today:

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I started a stub Priya's Shakti, and I'll do as much as I can, though graphic novels are new editor territory for me. Lightbreather (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

List of feminist comic books[edit]

I created a List of feminist comic books in tandem with the creation of a stub for Priya's Shakti. Someone has already proposed deleting it, without any discussion. I DEPROD-ed it, but just in case it turns into an AFD, thought I'd place a heads-up here. Lightbreather (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have started a related discussion about Priya's Shakti at RSN.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)