Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism

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

The radical feminism article relies far to heavily on one source Suggestion[edit]

Any interest in collaborating to remedy this? I notice the feminists in the See Also section are mostly radical or second-wave feminist authors; Dworkin, bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Mary Daly. Is there any reason we can't improve and expand the article using their works as references, instead of relying mainly on the one source (Willis) for the entirety of the article? Ongepotchket (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ongepotchket, if they are the source of the thought, they would be a primary source if cited directly. Instead it makes more sense to use secondary sources with commentary from a critical distance, which should be plentiful for this topic. czar  14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Secondary sources should be plentiful, and are plentiful, which is why I am confused about one source being used for the majority of the article. If we expand the references a bit I think that would help to make the article more accurate. Ongepotchket (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WaPo: Female-named Hurricanes[edit]

I´m not sure this is of any use for any feminism-related articles, but it was interesting, and I wanted to spread it. [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking it might belong in the "naming" of hurricanes, noting in US any way change from all female to male and female names AND the difference. But don't have time for debating it right now myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Today's DYK[edit]

Just noticed this repugnant DYK that was just posted a half-hour ago:

  • "...that an American serial killer said that he killed women before having sex with them because "I like peace and quiet"?"

How do misogynistic statements like this make it through four levels of approval in the DYK process and appear on the Main Page? DYKs are intended to draw in potential new readers and editors to Wikipedia's newest and most compelling content. Who is this factoid aimed at? Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Liz I'm not seeing it on the main page or the archives. Was it removed? I would f***ing hope so... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It was indeed pulled. Found where it's being discussed: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_March_25. Comment here: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Incidents_of_Necrophilia. Also here is where AndyTheGrump raised the alarm bells to get that shit off the front page. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT feminists may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender roles in Afghanistan needs rewrite[edit]

The page recently survived an AFD, which served to highlight the flaws in the current version of the article: it's made up of a single public domain text and reads like an essay. I'm bringing this to the attention of the Afghanistan, Sociology, Gender studies, and Feminism Wikiprojects in order that the article can be improved by having more editors work on it.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs some specialist attention[edit]

Please see Draft:Psychology's Feminist Voices, it looks notable but needs a thorough rewrite to be acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Women and Wikipedia Study - Request for interviews, focus groups, etc.[edit]

Hi. I've been working on an interview-based research project about women and Wikipedia since January (initial project proposal) and recently received a WMF Individual Engagement Grant to continue the work (IEG proposal). If you're willing to participate in an interview or will be at Wikimania and would like to chat and/or take part in a focus group, please let me know. Also, if you'd just like to share your thoughts and opinions via email, I'd love to hear them. --Mssemantics (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias task force[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force is looking for new members, and is currently holding an RM to rename it the Gender gap task force. This was started last year but didn't become active, so there's a renewed effort to get it going. All are welcome! SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "she" for ships[edit]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A much gentler proposal about changing the Manual of Style to deprecate the use of "she" for ships. As it concerns the intersection of grammatical gender with actual gender, I thought some of you might be interested. --John (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex differences in psychology‎‎[edit]

FYI, the article sex differences in psychology‎‎ has been mostly rewritten by someone who appears to be a men's rights activist (and has been topic banned from articles related to men's rights). I haven't had time to take a look at it, but it would be nice if someone from this project could look at it and make sure it is still adhering to the NPOV and verifiability policies. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just from a quick look I would say a) he's jargoned it up a bit too much without defining terms in the text, to the point it's not too useful (I got a headache reading it the first couple sections and didn't read as carefully to end as might have otherwise); b) he's removed the ongoing nature-nurture debate and replaced it with jargon that may or may not be relevant; c) he probably has included a bias that biology is the far greater force determining bias, as if that is the established and unchallenged view. I suspect the consensus is, for example, closer to 40 bio/60 culture influence on male vs. female psychology as opposed to 70 bio/30 culture which his changes seem to suggest. As in so many articles, one really would have to have a good knowledge of the topic to know what might be missing and also do a reference by reference check to see if sources are accurately presented. Big job. Don't have time myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminist technoscience[edit]

Hey, all! I'm a male supporter of feminism, but haven't read that much on feminist theory. This article needs a lot more sourcing; but, while I have no doubt the concept that technology can influence women's place in society are fairly mainstream, but it's a little hard to tell if the framing of them, as set out in this article, and the term selected are mainstream. Talk page is somewhat ugly, so I thought it better to come here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to delete categories involving literature by women.[edit]

There is a proposal to delete categories involving literature by women, including deleting Literature by African-American women, Literature by Asian-American women, Literature by Native American women, Literature by Hispanic and Latino American women. See discussion here: [link to discussion]. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Image for "Sex differences" template[edit]

I started a discussion at Template talk:Sex differences about the image used for that template. Please feel free to join the discussion if you have any opinions about it. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Past Masters partnership[edit]

Hey All. At the Wikipedia Library, we just opened up a partnership with Intelex's Past Masters. Included in the partnership is access to scholarly editions of a number of Women Writers, including all of the scholarly apparatus that makes great source material for writing articles. For more information of what's in the collection, see their list of works. I would like to encourage anyone interested to apply for access at WP:Past Masters!Sadads (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Article request: U.S.-Afghan Women's Council[edit]

Hello. Would some of you please consider creating a page on the U.S.-Afghan Women's Council, co-chaired by Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton? I think the page would be very useful, and very easy to find lots of references about it. I could create a stub, but I suspect some of you may be able to create a lengthier article. Let me know on my talkpage when you have created it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

New member[edit]

Hi. I just joined the project yesterday. I am going to create two new articles: Stop Porn Cultures and National Feminist Anti-Pornography Movement. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Glad to have you aboard! Looking forward to seeing the new articles. Let me know if you need any proofreading. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap related workshops at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Obviously getting more women involved in Wikipedia, including to beef up womens and feminist articles, is a concern here. Wikimania 2014 in London has five workshops related to the gender gap during the August 8-10 programme. Not too late to sign up!

I went in 2012 and it was a lot of fun. Quick, get those passports out! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

New section "Radical feminism and transgenderism" discussion[edit]

I invite folks to come discuss a recent addition of a section entitled "Radical feminism and transgenderism" to Radical feminism at this talk page section. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sara Jeannette Duncan[edit]

I've substantially improved the bio at Sara Jeannette Duncan but I'm going to struggle on the literary side of things. I'm posting this here and at the literature project in the hope that someone might be able to make a better job of it than I'm likely to do - there are plenty of sources out there, lit. crit. and otherwise, including at GBooks and JSTOR. Duncan was a Canadian who wrote mostly about Anglo-Indian society and had both a strong feminist angle and a Tariff Reform League-based interpretation of imperialism. I've got some bare bones in but I'm going to end up with far too many quotes unless someone with more clue can help out. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the literature project won't touch it because it is out of scope; nor, for the same reason, will the Books project. I've left an amended version of the above message at the Biography project - see here. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN on Transadvocate use in BLP[edit]

Regarding article Radical feminism and comments about women. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Transadvocate_use_in_BLP.2C_etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

At WP:RSN you still haven't demonstrated what BLP you're talking about. Tutelary (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
That issue was made even more clear for those who don't understand that BLP doesn't mean just a whole biographical article, but any mention of individuals. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Transwomen on Woman[edit]

Requesting a few people to scan Woman for cissexist and biological essentialist statements. I noticed today that it could use some improvement. The article is woefully lacking mentions of transwomen (only mentioned once). Currently discussion on talk page to include images of transwomen on page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi ladies, this project might be interested in discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WP:SIGNPOST_and_random_photos_of_tits. (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative consent[edit]

Would an expert on the subject care to add some more information to help balance the Affirmative consent article? Thanks. Yev Yev (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Organized effort to vandalize pages[edit]

Warning to readers: transphobia, hate speech.

Admins and fellow users should be aware of an effort by users on to vandalize pages on WP related to transwomen, specifically Laverne Cox. Today, an IP editor posted a link to this webpage and made similar anti-trans remarks on Talk:War on Women. Link to page regarding effort: link here. Thank you to ‎Ramendik for bringing this to our attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue already has been dealt with as of several days ago. TheAnon IP is from a US House Representative address. This incident has been covered by mainstream media - see The hill, Raw Story, etc. But I guess they are back.
The "warning" is a bit of hyperbole, since we'd have to search around history for whatever was written and quickly reverted on Cox article. (As opposed to the rather obvious use of "C*NT" word in various recent ANI and or Jimbo Wales talk page discussions.)
Finally, re: the "War on Women" talk page, "gendertrender" itself obviously is not RS. However, the site often links to mainstream articles on the topic. Some of the issues they mentioned are gaining more mainstream attention. So at some point editors could bring them up in relevant articles with proper sourcing, if not in the "war on women" article, since the phrase would have to be used in a RS article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If users want to bring up valid issues using RS, that's fine. But the users on gendertrender appear only interested in changing wikipedia because of their bigotry. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this header is inaccurate since it's readers of Gendertrender not necessarily the couple individuals involved. So let's not out people without evidence - or at all?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc what/who am I outing? I don't know if these are the same people as the USHOR IP editor(s) or not, but this hate group is clearly discussing disruptive edits. I see no problem in alerting the community to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You are falsely alleging specific individuals (whoever runs/writes at) that website is doing vandalism. Do you know that those individuals have IP Addresses in Congress or those specific Addresses? And if by chance any of them did edit here and was not responsible for those edits, technically you'd be outing editors for something they did not do. In any case, accusing individuals of vandalism that has been discussed in news sources is tacky at best and libelous if they decided to claim libel. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc WP:OUTING is related to posting personal info. I've not posted personal info. I never said that the members on that site are vandalizing, only that they appear to be planning to. I think I see your confusion now upon re-reading my original post. Let me reword: Today, an IP editor posted a linked to this webpage and many made similar anti-trans remarks on Talk:War on Women. One spelling error and a confusing choice of words. Better now? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The point is your subject lines (here and at ANI) directly accuse specific individuals (whoever runs that site) of vandalism. You should shorten them to "Organized effort to vandalize pages" or at least say "From AnonIP at US House of Representatives" since that's where it comes from. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That point was not clear to me. Yes check.svg Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up EvergreenFir. Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
apparently they tried. And, it does appear that the same user who did the other edits is involved. From the same thread on gendertrender:
BEGIN QUOTE hearthrising Says: August 26, 2014 at 3:57 pm
The “woman” page on Wikipedia seems to be locked for ordinary editors. Seems like there needs to be an agreement amongst high level editors to change anything on this particular page. Keeps the wrong kind of people from changing things. I’m surprised they allowed the female reproductive organ picture up there.My edits on Wikipedia generally get reversed quickly. I’ve tried to fix a lot of things, and some of my revisions stay, but I’ve decided this is not a good use of my time. Until mainstream opinions change about women’s rights, this crap is going to continue. END QUOTE
Curiouser and curiouser. Googling "hearthrising" gets a few commeons on blogs of a similar nature. Also, thanks for the locking. Ramendik (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD Courageous Cunts[edit]

Here. Keeps getting re-listed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

History of women's rights in South Africa[edit]

The article is an unsourced POV essay and needs to be either blown up and rewritten or deleted. It can potentially become a very interesting article as it is an very complex topic inextricably bound up in social and historical factors such as colonialism, traditional African paternalism, racism, Apartheid, and democratization. If anyone here is willing to help fix it please join the discussion at WT:WikiProject South Africa#History of women's rights in South Africa. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)