Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism

Main page	Talk page	Members	Resources	Popular pages

Worldwide view in Feminism

I am having some trouble with adding a worldwide view to the history section of Feminism, if anyone can comment on the discussion at Talk:Feminism#History section needs worldwide view it would be really appreciated. Thanks --Aronoel (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I couldn't find that section, is it still there? I just added a talk section to discuss the lack of a worldview in Feminism#Men_and_masculinity. Elements of this section imply that feminism is misandry. Can anyone else comment over there? Roger6r (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Retiring from Wikipedia

When I first joined Wikipedia, I did it for the women hockey. It in its own way, became writing therapy for me in the sense that I was able to write about what I loved. Wikipedia allowed me to sort out parts of my life that I needed to deal with ( I am a former junior player of hockey which stopped because of a grave wound in 2009)

There are a lot of users who I worked that I would like to thank for their assistance: Ottawa4ever, Maple Leaf, LauraHale and Kaldari . For those other users whose names I failed to mention, thanks you.

To all women users, good luck and courage on Wikipedia. This is a man's world. --Geneviève (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Or consider taking a break. I have been from most contentious articles anyway - (though still haven't been getting much writing done off wiki ;-(. But one day the itch to get in there will return, and perhaps yours will too! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Genevieve, there are those who would like us to think this is a man's world, but it is, and always has been, a person's world. Roger6r (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Geneviève, I've seen your contributions time and time again. Thank you for all your work, and I hope you'll decide to come back someday. You'll be much missed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Very much missed. Its very sad people are continually being driven off wiki, dispite a clear need for them to be here. This will probably only continue to worsen with others. Wikipedia is like a certain political party in power for years; head buried in the sand saying nothings wrong, nothing needs to be done to attract people over, we'll keep on truckin like everythings going to be ok......and then comes the future, opps where did all our supporters go?cricket noise Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Project scope

Should articles like Rape during the occupation of Germany fall under the scope of this Wiki-project? If so, then perhaps the Wikiproject banner could be placed on the article talkpage. --Martin (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the banner plus assessment. Kaldari (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the banner to Misogyny (really needs it, be careful not to get banned fixing it), Femininity, Gender Roles (Should be renamed Gender Stereotypes), and Misandry (need to bust up the misconception that misandry is feminism). Roger6r (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity

More opinions are needed at femininity if anyone is interested. Thanks--Aronoel (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I added to your discussion on the talk page section "Stereotype." I would like the intro to declare the article is explicitly about the feminine stereotype if that is what is being defended. Also, there needs to be references for the stereotypes that are there, especially in the lead. Roger6r (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'd be interested in your input on my recent addition to the talk for changing the Main Picture. Roger6r (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am adding "Computer Programming" to the list of traditionally feminine occupations because the first modern computer programmers were women. Please join the discussion. Roger6r (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Carole Berry

Writer of mysteries about office temp workers. How could temp girls be notable when they're just cheap labor here today, gone tomorrow? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Berry Trilliumz (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Result was keep but needs more work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rectifying an old double standard

Hello. Anybody here interested in helping at Talk:Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.#Rectifying_an_old_double_standard is welcome to. I quote from my note there. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hi there. I was in sixth grade when JFK died, so I'm old enough to be somewhat shocked that I never learned about his sister Rosemary until now. I would like to work with the editors of this article to place one cited sentence in the lead. I'm prepared to read any books you think are needed in order to accomplish that. I will try to be careful of Joseph's reputation and take it easy, but what happened to his daughter is almost unbelievable to me today. Is anybody else willing to help?

Our article about her brother says he was promiscuous and said to Harold Macmillan, "I wonder how it is for you, Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches." The Associated Press quote from her obituary, "Rosemary was a woman, and there was a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace,” author Laurence Leamer wrote in an unauthorized Kennedy biography called The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family. The AP obituary, "But as she got older, her father worried that his daughter's mild condition would lead her into situations that could damage the family's reputation." So we appear to have a somewhat slow but otherwise normal female whose only fault was that she was a female. It might take me a year to do it correctly and without original research, but one sentence needs to be here. Thank you for your time. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Two users came to the rescue, one recommending a book and another suggesting (and using) a source. I need to read that book now. Anyway, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Consciousness raising

I just stumbled across this article today and it isn't bannered with WikiProject Feminism. Should it be? Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, cool subject. I'd like to create an article on Kathie Sarachild since one doesn't exist yet. Does anyone want to collaborate on this? Roger6r (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Misogyny is unbalanced

The Misogyny page fails to present a worldview. I have tagged the Mythology subsection as unbalanced. Other sections could use attention as well. Please join the talk page. HypatiaX (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added an original research tag to the Philosophy section of Misogyny. If you have any input, please join in at Talk:Misogyny#Alleged_misogynists_original_research. HypatiaX (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

Hello!

I have been accused of "trolling" because of objecting to some statements first about a female editor "courting the Wikipedia fraternity" and "screaming into her tea cloth" and then about some remarks about me. Please look at my talk page.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sex and gender distinction

Could someone help explain the sex and gender distinction in the discussion at Talk:Femininity#Lead discussion? Thanks --Aronoel (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - one month trial

Check it out and see if useful for this project. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP and complainants in rape cases: Publicizing names

There is a discussion of WP:BLP and names of rape victims at my talk page, which was sparked by my deletion of the name of one of Julian Assange's complainants from the talk page of CounterPunch.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Publicizing the name of victims is now discussed at the WP:BLP noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender apartheid an analogy??

See discussion I started at Talk:Gender_apartheid#Apartheid_analogy. (Note the article has been used for Islam bashing and I do intend to cut down that section quite a bit, especially since there already is another article specifically about Islam.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative gender systems

A suggestion has been made for merging "alternative gender systems" with "gender systems." No similar suggestion is made for merging a category like "alternative music" with "music". ˜˜˜˜laprofe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprofre (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Link: Alternative gender systems. Neither article is great at the moment; they need some major cleanup. GS is 24.2 kb and AGS is 11.1 kb, so a straight content merge (before any cleanup or expansion) would put the resulting article at 35 kb - the point where you start to consider breaking up a larger article anyway. If anything, some GS content needs to be under AGS. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

LATER: Carolmooredc, I did not put the link on the main project page; that was Laprofre. My edit was merely fixing the redlink; you're free to remove the whole link if you wish. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The merge actually happened back in June following consensus on the talk page; Laprofre reverted it 14 minutes before posting here. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Male feminists

I have created this category and categorized it with a few articles. I bring attention to it here for all interested and knowledgeable to add more. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice category. I added John Stoltenberg‎. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is great. I'll be can adding a few in there. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:African American Women and Category:African American women in politics

This is a notice to tell you that Category:African American women and Category:African American women in politics have been nominated for deletion. The discussions are found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_15#Category:African_American_women_in_politics and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_16#Category:African_American_women. --LauraHale (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Q on Humanities RefDesk re legal majority for women in the UK

I tried to answer it, but don't have the info. Any historians around? Or lawyers? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Using Gender apartheid as a coatrack

In Gender apartheid article, have been paring back the two massive sections on "gender apartheid" and Islam for last couple months and now getting some push back so would appreciate some input there. Most recent diff which probably will be reverted. There already is a Sex segregation in Islam article.

So it looks like the excessive material - including lots of block quotes which I've shortened and incorporated into paragraphs - are an attempt by some past editors to use the serious topic of "gender apartheid" as a coatrack to support duplicative and repetive attacks on Muslims per se. As a feminist, I have a problem with that.

Don't worry, the section is still huge compared to rest of the article. To the extent lead should almost say that it's used primarily to describe Muslims, but even then the article Sex segregation in Islam should be the main article. Note that a couple months ago I added some other uses of the term. Just did another books.google search and found a few new things to add as well. Feel free to add other uses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the offending editor was exposed by others as a sockpuppet of AFolkSingersBeard and reverted his changes so it now has a balanced presentation of this important feminist topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Women's issues constantly up for deletion

I've recently been making categories for women of color on Wiki, which has caused a lot of hubub.... Recently an article that I found really informative was deleted without my knowing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Native_American_women This list really helped me in my research--there isn't even a history for me to create a category from this. I really want to contribute to WP, but I don't understand why people are making it so hard by saying that women's issues don't matter. I can see why creating a category would be better for the issue, but this has seemed to be rather systematic of women's issues since I've become more active here. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One person wrote at the AfD page: don't see this as a particularly notable intersection, Native American Women Writers, Artists etc. would be fine I see Category:Female Native American leaders and Category:Native American women in warfare do exist. You could challenge the deletion and announce it here, but people should read the arguments before opining. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia, therefore doesn't exist

I've just created an article for Margaret Kelly (civil servant), fl. 1911. What spurred me was not just her interesting story -- first female director of the US Mint, highest paid female government official -- but the comment by the person who brought her to light, to the effect that a historical character without a Wikipedia article doesn't really exist:

She sounds like a great role model for women trying to break the glass ceiling. And yet, I can find almost no other mention of her online. No Wikipedia entry. Nothing. History is very strange sometimes.[1]

Here's the pdf interview from 1911: "A Talk with Miss Margaret Kelly, Director of the U.S Mint" So -- anyone want to flesh out Ms Kelly? And is there a list of could-be-notable-but-not-yet-on-Wikipedia? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrt, could-be-notable-not-yet-on-Wikipedia, we have WP:Missing articles and WP:Requested articles. Nothing specific to feminism though, as far as I know. --Danger (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many great women who are not on WP, and it shocks me that they don't have their own pages. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can generate some lists, or provide sources for generating such lists, we can start the process of creating those articles. See, for example, the List of female scientists before the 21st century and List of female mathematicians for previous work on providing kicking-off points for article creation. This Google search provides other examples of similar lists.

See also User:The Anome/Notable women lists for some resources that might help. -- The Anome (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(Update: I've made a quick list at User:The Anome/Find-A-Grave famous people filtered by gender to try the automated approach. Sidenote: The ratio in the original list of as-yet-uncreated articles was 1619 women to 8384 men.) -- The Anome (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have recently been contributing a lot of research to women of color issues, and these were some of the women I'm concerned with not having articles of their own. Right now I'm writing broad articles on the issues, but I suppose eventually I will start writing short biographical articles. Is there anyway I can add these women to a database of women without articles? Here are the articles I have written so far: African American women in politics, Hispanic and Latino American women in journalism. Particularly in the journalism article are quite a few redlinks. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do would be to create an articles-wanted list in project space first -- perhaps with some title like Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Notable women articles for creation -- and when we have a start on that, see what can be done with it later. -- The Anome (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I added to the requested articles, but it's such a large list it seems they'd get lost, so that sounds like a really good idea. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing Women's categories to "Female" categories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_1#.22Women.22_categories I felt this would be of relevance here, just in case any women here take issue to the term "female." I do know feminists who do not like this word due to a dehumanizing effect, and I don't feel the change is a good idea because of that. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup request

I hope this is the place to request a female article for cleanup. Women and governance is in need of a rewrite (it has a kind-of bad flow when reading it) or clarification. I hope too that someone will see that this article needs editing. --Turn685 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler article

There's currently a prolonged content dispute taking place at the article for Phyllis Chesler. I'd appreciate it if some other people could look this over. CJCurrie (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated "grow a pair" sexism: Testical cancer survivor

Hi sisters and brothers and fellow somewhat ambiguous persons,

1. At an ANI about me, an editor that an administrator "grow a pair" and block me.

My reply requested that the editor avoid sexist terminology like "grow a pair", particularly when addressing editors (me) displaying the Livestrong userbox (about testicle cancer). The sexist remark was not redacted, and nobody else objected the sexism.

1. The administrator who had closed yesterday's ANI, removing the Livestrong (testicle-cancer survivor) user-box in a special and final edit , repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard.
2. Then an arbcom administrator repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard.

None of these remarks have been redacted, and nobody else has objected to them. After I wrote "Nobody gives a shit about your gonads" in response to the last "grow a pair", there has been another suggestion of blocking me.

I am not a saint. The ANI arose mostly because of my clean-ups of articles on American socialism. At my worst, I had firmly criticized an edit describing the majority of the Socialist Party of America (includingMichael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, Sandra Feldman, Rachelle Horowitz, etc.) as "democratic centralist (Leninist)"; this edit had removed "Stalinist" before "Stalinist democratic-centralism" from an unreliable source.I also asked a fellow who kept misunderstanding what I wrote whether he had poor vision, like myself.

However, whatever my faults, I do not deserve the last two repeated, consciously sexist pokes, at least one of which was a deliberate baiting.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

While removing the user box was probably appropriate, the obvious jokes by the admins were not. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators#Disputes_or_complaints which says: In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available. WP:Wikiquette might be a place to complain. Or just tell them that you left a complaint here and maybe they'll feel somewhat chided. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carol,

Thanks for your support and suggestions. I have had a tough weekend and start of a week with the ANI/AN thread, some legitimate but a lot imho not, and I was tired of facing antagonism.

Soon after I wrote the complaint to them on AN, I started to receive messages of support and apologies (even from people who had not said the "grow a pair"), which was deeply appreciated.

A true hero of Wikipedia is Kaldari, who has now twice appeared and forced people to deal with sexism. I know the traditional technique for stopping sexist behavior: Turn and face the jerk with squared sholdiers, firmly wag the finger once into a pointing position, and firmly state "Stop that! Nobody likes to be treated like that"; the technique's supposed to rekindle fear/respect of maternal authority. Kaldari is the only one who can do that in Wiki-text! She stopped all the denial and caused some nervous and hopefully thoughtful silence simply by stating that a female editor "was courting the WP fraternity" was sexist.

I have been glad to accept the apologies from the two administrators. The guy who closed (in good faith) the ANI (and had to remove the box) made an especially heartfelt apology (and had been helpful and kind the previous day). The ArbCom member's personality was known to me, and (having had received kind messages in between) I had already guessed that she had tried to defuse a tense AN by bending her gender a bit. The first fellow who started the phrase cannot be blamed for not stalking my user page and clicking all the buttons, but I hope he'll try to avoid sexist phrasing a bit more in the future. So I consider the incident closed.

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiChix Lunch Summary from Wikimania

Hi everyone - this past week the WikiChix Lunch took place at Wikimania 2011. I have written a summary for those who are interested. :) WikiChix Lunch 2011 SarahStierch (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

NOW article

Hi everyone. I posted on the National Organization of Women talk page about the lack of content related to the more "controversial" (ha!) aspects of the organization. There is little to no mention of the early homophobia within the organization, their first director, Dolores Alexander (who I am writing a start article for right now, so hopefully this will be blue shortly), and while it reads neutral, the majority of the content is from the NOW website, and the chronology, while very sexy, lacks citation. I have created a list of some starting point resources, and I'd like to work with some folks to perhaps make the article bigger, more broader and so forth. Talk:National_Organization_for_Women#Lack_of_controversy...surprises_me is where I started the conversation. I do hope there is some interest here. :) SarahStierch (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

More stats and research

Lots of new stats and research discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-15/Women and Wikipedia. One interesting stat related to feminism: 91% of the edits to the article Feminism by registered users are by men (mostly from the United States). Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation - RfC

People here may be interested to know about a RfC which is currently active :-

Female genital mutilation - RfC

I came across this by chance today. There is a discussion going on around whether or not it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use the term "female genital mutilation" (FGM). Some people think it would be preferable to use the term "female genital cutting" (FGC) on the grounds that this would be more neutral. They say that "mutilation" is POV. They acknowledge that the vast majority of academics use the term FGM, but they argue that the lack of neutrality in the term FGM outweighs this consideration.

I may be wrong, but I acquired the impression that the entire group of people taking part in the discussion were men. Rubywine . talk 06:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Put in my two cents. Looks like the consensus is going to be at FGM. Really disturbing that this argument even has to be had. SarahStierch (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put in the argument, as you will see, that cutting is a type of mutilation. I don't think they quite get that. Also cutting could imply that a woman has done it to herself (whether through self injury, accidental, or body art).--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points. I feel like it also downplays the horrific nature of FGM. SarahStierch (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But that's not me being "neutral" towards a "neutral subject" :P SarahStierch (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is in a disgraceful state and really should not have a class B grading from this project. Please reconsider that grading. I've left some notes in Talk:Female genital mutilation#Sections needing work and missing sections.

Is there anyone else who'd like to help me work on improving the article? I am very short of time this week and can't start until next week. Rubywine . talk 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll help with it, since i know a quite a bit about it. I was a psyc student so fortunately I have experience with summing up these sort of studies too. I'm just staying far from the talk page because some of those people trigger my anger just a bit too much.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is my summary of the 1989 article. I will add the newer articles to it later. But I would like to note, and I am sure you are aware, 1989 is considered very outdated for this sort of information. Most scientists and researchers will only consider research within the past 10 years. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Henrietta. That's a brilliant new section you've written which properly represents the study. I've only just seen it. Yes 1989 is outdated but Lightfoot-Klein is a very important study which started her 30 years of work against FGM (see her website, books and articles)[2]. It's also the best possible defence against allegations of bias, and future restorations of bad material, if we correctly cite studies which have been so badly misrepresented, as you have done today, instead of deleting them from the article. It makes my blood boil that Lightfoot-Klein's work has been used to promote the idea that women with FGM are not really sexually damaged. I think she deserves an apology. Rubywine . talk 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that Jakew takes quotes out of context and uses them the way he wants to. Also, and I don't mean for this to sound presumptious, but a lot of people who haven't read studies a lot or been trained on how to read them probably would do a very bad job on summarizing them. I had to learn how to do it in school myself so I can't imagine what a person who doesn't read scientific studies regularly would do when summing it up, but it would probably be a lot like what happened here.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Jakew certainly does do that, and yes, papers like Lightfoot-Klein are hard to summarise. But if you think that was hard, Abusharaf was a densely written jungle of prose. SonicYouth sent me a PDF (there must be library restrictions that stopped her posting a link). I had to quote large sections from it on the talk page because I was told I needed to explain why the sentence I deleted misquoted and misrepresented the source, and I don't have a month to write a summary. Rubywine . talk 16:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I did quite a bit of work to remove bias and he added more sources in to put his bias back in... Sigh.... I think this will become an edit war if we are not careful. I will have to clean up his mess later.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Netball GA nomination

As some of you may know, the article netball (a popular women's sport outside of the U.S.) has had a long and sordid history on Wikipedia (even spawning a Request for Arbitration at one point). Last month it was officially delisted as a Good Article. Rather than letting it languish, several editors have attempted to improve the article since then and it has now been renominated for Good Article assessment. If anyone with GA assessment experience has an interest, it is currently open to be claimed. It would also be helpful to have extra eyes give it a good copy-editing, if anyone has time. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It failed again, so please feel free to take a look at the article again. The reviewer left some vague comments as to why it did not pass. Thanks in advance! :) SarahStierch (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Women in Iraq" and "Women's rights in Iraq" articles

I just posted an article "Women in Iraq" and then discovered that there's already an article "Women's rights in Iraq".

They're both longish with lots of sources. In looking at both of them, I'd like to do some cross-editing. "Women in Iraq" should be more broad, so I'd like to cut and past the historical info from "Women's rights in Iraq" into "Women in Iraq".

Then, I would like to take a lot of the info on women's rights organizations from "Women in Iraq" and cut and paste it into "Women's rights in Iraq".

Make sense?

OttawaAC (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Creating new categories for "Women's Organizations"

I see a need to have some categories created (some of these categories already exist on the other language Wikipedias):

* Women's organizations ..............with sub-categories:

• • Women's rights organizations
  • Women's athletic organizations
  • Women's charitable organizations
  • Women's professional organizations
  • Women's parenting organizations
  • Women's education organizations
  • Women's recreation organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttawaAC (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do I request that someone else do this, like an editor? Or do I just go ahead and create them? (And if so, how would I do that?) Thanks.

OttawaAC (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization. And probably could to put at least a half dozen organizations under each category to get the ball rolling. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Ok, I looked around and found Category:Women's_organizations ... It was hidden within Category:Organizations by membership ... which to me is a redundant navigational directory.

Organizations are also in Categories by subject. Including "Organization by membership" , which as a navigational tool, is useless, it just sends users down a useless path (like how I got lost).

Another redundant navigating tool is "Lists of Organizations" which drills down to more lists, and lists of lists, and lists of lists of lists.... completely redundant navigation mess, because there are Categories already for organizations. Why is there any need for Lists of Organizations, on top of Categories for Organizations? Does Wikipedia really need a list of all zillion organizations in a given country, city, etc.?

That's more a general comment than a Feminism-related comment though. I will copy and paste my little rant over to the Community at large forum (thereby making it redundant? lol) OttawaAC (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Another awesome woman's article up for deletion

I love how you start to see the same names pop up of deletionists nominating women's articles. :P Really cool story about a woman who changed the face of physics! Elizabeth Rauscher SarahStierch (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all. The same people (albeit different from these) also pop up to delete women's categories.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Horrendously they will put this up for deletion but this article on Ashkenazi intelligence is kept. I nominated it and it was speedily kept because three nominations for deletes went on three years ago. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a polite question on their talk pages about why they keep doing that might make them more conscious of their bias. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I find the "notability" guidelines quite murky, myself. I suppose it's questionable how exceptional this person's career achievements have been; maybe it would just be a matter of re-framing her biographical information. I don't know enough about her field, though. I saw that she won an award, so I looked for information on the organization that gave out the award -- they're kind of fringe, but while looking around, I came across this biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Benor

Daniel I. Benor's biography is quasi-spam about a "wholistic" healer/motivational speaker (not holistic healer, but wholistic healer....) The talk page for that article is full of comments, where at least one editor gives the poster some advice on improving the article, etc., but there's no attempt to delete it. Huh? So what are the standards? Seems a bit arbitrary.

To give the editor in the Elizabeth Rauscher case the benefit of the doubt, I'm guessing that they are trying to stop every academic, fringe group founder, etc., on the face of the earth from trying to add a biography to Wikipedia to pad their resume, so maybe the criteria for establishing notability could be clearer. OttawaAC (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I'm p*****. I posted a biography on a First Lady of Cote d'Ivoire (a country in Africa). She was assassinated with her husband a few years ago. Anyway, it was tagged for speedy deletion by one editor, then changed to a redirect to the biography of her husband by another editor. WHAT? There are numerous articles on Wikipedia for First Ladies of many other countries. What's wrong with Cote d'Ivoire First Ladies? Are they not as notable as the First Ladies of the State of Kentucky? (There are five biographies on Wikipedia for First Ladies from Kentucky. I don't know if any of them were assassinated or not, though...)

The nuttiness is enough to sting your brain. This is an uphill battle all the way. OttawaAC (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As others have noted elsewheres, some guys get their jollies getting articles deleted; another notch in their sorry gun, evidently. Maybe we need some limitation on the number of articles an individual editor can nominate for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or WP:AfD, whichever is most abused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

-- At least I got the article on the Ivorian First Lady brought back from the brink by saying something to the editor. It's staying. All's well, for now! OttawaAC (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Donation of three months' access to Feminist Economics

Routledge has kindly offered three months' free online access to Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, for up to 15 Wikimedians. The sign-up sheet is here, and will open at 22:00 UTC, Monday, August 29.

Please pass the word along to anyone you know who might be interested, particularly people on projects other than the English Wikipedia. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the editor of Feminist Economics, Diana Strassmann, uses Wikipedia in one of the courses she teaches. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible bias in illustrating articles

I'm not a member of this project, though I'm active with the Women's History project, where the point that concerns me is probably outside scope.

Compare, if you would, the choice of illustration for penis to that of vagina. Both articles deal generally with the anatomy of animals and humans, but "penis" is illustrated with a quirky "selection of penises from different species" disembodied on parade at a museum (no image of a human penis), while "vagina" doesn't show a single example from an animal, only a closeup of a woman's spread vagina.

I'm not saying this represents any kind of conscious choice, and I have no plans to edit either article myself. Just an observation if anyone's interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a matter of choice, or a matter of biology. It's fairly simple to get a picture of either human genitalia, or of an animal penis (hell, there's a whole museum of em), but I suspect it's rather difficult to get a picture of an animal vagina. There is one picture of an animal vagina on Commons; it's a pretty disgusting picture of a prolapsed cow vagina. I'm not sure it'd add much to the article. I agree that there needs to be more species selection; I'm not sure I can pass judgement on where the problem arises. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh christ I cannot believe I looked at that cow vagina.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You've made a good point Cynwolfe. I think there are signs of bias, probably unconscious. I think both penis and vagina should show human genitalia but I'm not happy about the image in vagina. The hands in the image and the extreme spread of the vagina are unnecessary, and the caption doesn't mention that the pubic area is shaved. There are better images of the human vulva in clitoris and sex organ - which also contains a human penis. Regarding bias, the contrast between human female sexuality and human male sexuality is quite comical. Rubywine . talk 01:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That image has to be a porn picture. There is no other way. I cannot imagine any other time someone would spread a woman's labia like that other than for extreme penetration. Also, I'm not even sure if that is an adult, which really bothers me.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That didn't occur to me (the age question I mean) but it raises a serious issue. I'm surprised that Wikimedia accepts this type of image without a declaration of the subject's age. Rubywine . talk 02:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there's that, but there's a larger issue here: on porn websites they require for the ID of the individual whose picture was taken. (Don't ask how I know.) WP is not considered a porn site, but this is clearly porn. I mean, it's one of those things that you know it when you see it. I think I will be reporting this and trying to find a more suitable pic.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the picture with an illustration. We'll see how long that lasts. But this really calls into question a something WP has really overlooked. Just because a girl has pubic hair does not mean she's of age. Are these pictures being accounted for at all? I have no problem with penises or vaginas everywhere as long as we're all adults.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few images on commons where the subject's anatomy allows one to see the vaginal opening without spreading the labia manually, but they are either unlabeled or have non-English labels. I'm not sure how to make labels on images. I've added a few medical images to the article. --Danger (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. There is actually a separate human penis article, which must be why penis is basically unillustrated. Dicks are that important. There is no article dedicated to the genitals of female non-human animals. (I am reminded of the probably apocryphal story of male scientists baffled by the bizarre corkscrew shaped phalluses of some duck species until a female scientist had the bright idea to examine the oviducts of the females.) --Danger (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which prompts me to say that my point is mainly "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The greater difficulty of documenting animal vaginas is a point well taken; but it seems like a good encyclopedic goal to at least try to treat male/female, human/animal genitalia in a comparably informative manner. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Henrietta it looks as though you were right about it being porn. The original image (this one's got retouched skin tones; how tasteful) was uploaded to Commons by "Tracy and rick Anderson". Their other uploads are graphic images of fellatio. This side of Wikimedia is all a bit surprising to me I have to say. Rubywine . talk 02:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it was an adult only account or something--locked for viewing for non-users, and I have lost my flickr password so I assumed as much. Sadly, I've seen enough porn incidentally for one women to know what it looks like.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd never thought about age of consent in regard to these photos before. I'm fairly blasé about this kind of stuff, but this is a very serious question. How do we know that sexually explicit photos don't use minors? We don't require release forms, for instance. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that further discussion is directed to Commons, here:

Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Release_form_for_sexual_images_as_mitigation_against_child_pornography

The Commons discussion includes links to all four discussions on Wikipedia. Rubywine . talk 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is most definitely a bias in using nude or semi-nude women to illustrate Wikipedia articles. I've personally seen this debated at pregnancy, ochre, girl, sun tanning, femininity, and shorts just to name a few. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the discussion at pregnancy is still ongoing. Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No policy for age checks on sexually explicit photos

Apparently WP has no policy on this sort of stuff. So these photos we're talking about above? We don't even know if these are kids or adults. And while someone might say, hey that vagina looks like a woman's vagina (???) no one knows. Teenagers going though puberty look different and some appear like adults. To me this is not an issue of getting all sexual images off WP or keeping minors from viewing them. It's keeping child porn off of WP. I brought this up at the Village Pump, and they did not seem to get the point that this is about child porn, not getting perceived pornographic pics off Wikipedia entirely. I don't care what adults do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I've put a note on SlimVirgin's talk page. I'm hoping she'll be able to help. Rubywine . talk 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ruby and Henrietta, I know there have been discussions about these issues for a long time, but I haven't taken part in them myself because they are so frustrating. I'm therefore not up to speed. My own concern has always been whether the fully informed consent of the subject has been obtained, even for images of apparently adult women. If not, what can a woman do if she sees an image of herself on Wikipedia—write to OTRS and ask them to take down the image of her body parts? The onus should not be on the subject to sort this out, but on the uploader. There are discussions here on Commons that might get you headed in the right direction. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim, thanks for the link to the right discussion forum! Of course you're right, the consent of an adult subject is an important issue. It's violating the subject's privacy if there's no consent and I agree with everything you said. In regard to our immediate concern though, in terms of cutting through objections and prevarications, I'm hoping that a focus on the need to exclude potential child pornography for legal reasons might meet with some success. There must be a lawyer somewhere in WMF. Henrietta, do you want to start the topic there or shall I? Rubywine . talk 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are all the discussions for those interested:

• w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Does_WP_have_a_policy_for_sexually_explicit_photos.3F
• w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policies_against_possible_child_porn
• Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Release_form_for_sexual_images_as_mitigation_against_child_pornography -- Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that further discussion is directed to Commons, here:

Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Release_form_for_sexual_images_as_mitigation_against_child_pornography

The Commons discussion includes links to all four discussions on Wikipedia. Rubywine . talk 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FEMINISM gets a namecheck on Commons

A cross-post from Commons:

"Given that this issue is being orchestrated from en:WP:FEMINISM, what we have right here is probably the Wikipedia version of the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (NPR article on it). Sexual abuse hysteria is the place where all creeping censorship campaigns begin. Extransit (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)"

Henrietta gave these guys a link to Derailing for Dummies. The next thing they posted was 108 penis closeups, and now this. Looks like they thought it was a tutorial. Rubywine . talk 11:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this: Regardless of one's stance, there are so many fucking dumbasses who contribute to Commons, I'm just glad I never have to meet most of these people in person. SarahStierch (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Eric D Angell

New article Eric D Angell on a possible rapist who confessed in a "joke" in a comedy show; AfD here. The HuffPo has picked it up; it definitely warrants a section in rape culture but does it need its own article? Without a heavy number of reliable sources it's a major BLP vio; with them (monday papers, hopefully) it's passable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Article was deleted for BLP violations, which was probably fair. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Endorsing petition

I am going to start a petition due to the response at commons on the issue of age checks for sexually explicit photos. It seems many Wikipedians, even if they don't care about the child abuse aspect, don't care about the legal implications for Wikipedia (Many of them seem to not even know basic laws regarding porn distribution.), which has offices centered in Florida, USA. Being from the USA, I know our laws, and holding an excuse that WP does not have to follow age checks because it is not considered a porn site would not pass in any court. When you have suspected child porn on your server, you are considered of distributing porn. Therefore, I want to start a petition to raise awareness of the issue. I am asking the Feminist Project to endorse this petition. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We should probably also bring this up with legal at the Wikimedia Foundation. This needs to move beyond just "the people," IMHO. SarahStierch (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree definitely! I just didn't know where I should go to bring it up. Both Rubywine and I have been discussing it and no one seems to think it's an issue except for us and one other guy.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't gotten much of a response (except Sarah's above), but I believe based on other conversations here there won't be much of an upset if I say this is endorsed by the Feminist Project on the petition. I will also point out that I have been told due to Section 230 of US law, WP is exempt from monitoring of photos, but I will also say that Wikimedia is already self-monitored by users--copyright issues and such. I don't believe suggesting that we monitor for underage content is much of a hassle to ask for considering that copyrighted material is so easily monitored.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's like having a modeling release. I'm not opposed. I also hate the idea that we need it that badly, that there is that much "nudity" on Wikimedia? Again, I think we should at least hit up the legal team. I met with a few folks this past week at WMf, when I get home (this upcoming week) I'll investigate and we can write them (email me if you want?) just to see what they think. I just want to be post-vacation.....I have a lot of WP:Feminism talk messages to follow up on =) SarahStierch (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've kinda decided that this is sort of an uphill battle. Too many people are blase about it and just don't care. I guess it's better to let Wikimedia have problems when it comes rather than try to prevent it.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so anyone reading knows, we got an email from legal letting us know about their policy. Unfortunately this incident just goes to show how many people do not know about the legal policies of Wikipedia, and even if you are right, they will argue you to death. In any event, I think I'm going to create a page similar to this so people know about the policy and an incident like this does not happen again.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So we require photographs of recognizable individuals taken in a private place to have permission, but we do not require photographs of recognizable individual's privates to have permission. Further, even legally obtained images may be deleted due to "moral issues" (presumably unless the people in it are naked). Is that correct? --Danger (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, as someone who has worked in the photography industry (and even been dragged in front of a camera myself a few times), we have model releases. I don't know why "body parts" have to determine why permission should not be provided. If I was any person with my junk slapped up on Commons without know, I'd be rather pissed, it just makes sense to have a release. blarghhh..SarahStierch (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mathilde Vaerting

I've stubbed Mathilde Vaerting, but it would be great if someone with German could help and expand it.Dsp13 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't speak German but I've added a translation request tag to the article just in case it's helpful. Rubywine . talk 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

English Suffragettes

Would it perhaps be appropriate to have a category 'Suffragettes'? The term is distinct from Suffragists, at least in England.

--Johnny Cyprus (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Maybe Scartol would know. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Suffragettes" exists on Wikipedia as a standalone article.

The main article on Wikipedia for women's suffrage is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage From there, it breaks down into women's suffrage articles by country. There is also a separate article on Wikipedia for "Suffragettes" for the United States variety of female women's suffrage campaigners.

For the United Kingdom, the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom

That covers women's suffrage in the UK; as far as universal suffrage goes, and the history of movements to extend the UK voting rights to different classes of men, I'm not sure where you'd go to find that on Wikipedia.

Does that answer the question?

Hth.

OttawaAC (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Feminist Economics

Just a reminder that the sign-up sheet has opened for anyone interested in three months' free access to Feminist Economics. All members of the project are welcome. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed child abuse informational page on commons

[3]

These are already legal policies set forth by Wikimedia, so this is more of an informational page. I have proposed it at Commons and it's up for vote.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Henrietta, could you please amend the title at the Village Pump so it's 100% clear it's a proposed information page about an existing policy, and not a proposed policy. I think the first contributor had a point - it could go astray rather quickly unless that's clear. Rubywine . talk 20:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)