Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies

Project Gender studies ⇒ Project page ⇒ Talk page ⇒ Notice Board ⇒ Translation ⇒ Assessment ⇒ Popular pages ⇒ Templates ⇒ Collaboration ⇒ Deletion sorting ⇒ WikiProject Feminism ⇒ Portal:Feminism Category:WikiProject Gender studies

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

Please help us decide the best way to credit the Wachowskis in articles about their films.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion re: lead image at Woman

Current lead image at Man

Current lead image at Woman

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Woman#A woman is more than a vagina?. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ^Leviv_ich 04:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Toxic masculinity

There is currently a discussion ongoing about whether to make Toxic masculinity its own page. Interested editors may wish to participate at Talk:Hegemonic masculinity#Proposed split "Toxic masculinity". Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

After birth abortion

I wonder if any of you have an opinion on this redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

--

Presented without comment: an article about the phrase:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/02/after-birth-abortion-how-right-wing-web-sites-turned-my-old-article-into-a-fake-news-story.html

Have you heard the news? There’s a movement afoot to legalize infanticide. They’re calling it “after-birth abortion.” Those disgusting liberals! We’ll remember in November.

I was surprised to see comments like these flying around the Internet this week. I’m the guy who wrote the article they’re talking about. It’s two years old. Now the right-wing echo-sphere is passing the story around as though it’s new. People think “after-birth abortion” is a real thing or a policy proposal. They don’t even read carefully enough to notice that I was criticizing it. I’m getting tweets and comments depicting me as a baby killer.

This is the Internet echo chamber at its worst. How does it happen?

Here’s the rough story. Two years ago in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a couple of philosophers outlined a case for infanticide. They called it “after-birth abortion.” I explained their argument and challenged pro-choicers to explain how lines could be drawn against such an extension of abortion rights.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice: Jewish religious clothing

A Request for Comment that may be relevant to this WikiProject is open at Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment. Ibadibam (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Prostitution in Japan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Prostitution in Japan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Japan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

New gender identity page

A new gender identity subpage has been added to the Manual of Style:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity (shortcut: MOS:IDINFO).

Discussion about this new section, and about Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines in general, is taking place on its talk page:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Handling of "female privilege"

Hey all. I'm fully aware of how contentious this term might be, but I wanted to raise my concerns with where it currently rests in this WikiProject.

Currently, the page Female privilege redirects to Men's rights movement#Female privilege, a subsection of the "Issues" section of that article. This subsection is a little out-of-place and I feel that a write-up on "female privilege" would belong better on Male privilege, Social privilege, or Ambivalent sexism.

The reasoning behind this is that, regardless of its validity, I don't think that "female privilege" is an idea that's exclusive to men's rights movements. I'm sure that the editors here have a better idea of where it belongs in this WikiProject, but as it stands now, it seems rather misleading to send a person to Men's rights movement when they search for "female privilege".

Btw, I started a discussion to change the redirect but was told it would probably be a better idea to go to the WikiProject itself. So here I am. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What would be most helpful is finding published, reliable sources that discuss the concept of "female privilege" outside the context of the men's rights movement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Men's Rights sidebars

So if you go to the Woman article or the Girl article you'll see a feminism sidebar, and if you go to Man or Boy you'll see a sidebar for something called "Masculism" (which my spellchecker does not think is a real word) with a prominent link to the Men's rights portal. This feels like an absurd case of false balance to me.

• The lead for the feminism article says the feminist goal is the "political, economic, personal, and social equality of the genders" and credits feminism with accomplishments like "women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property."

• The lead for the men's rights movement says "the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized some men's rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of patriarchy and male supremacy" and "The movement and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic" and that the movement is "notably anti-feminist".

Can we really call these two movements at all equivalent? Do we really want to be giving such equal weight to them? Yikes. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the articles Man and Boy are listed prominently in the sidebar and on the portal page. I don't know why that is, since neither article says anything about "masculism" or "men's rights". So the article links should probably be removed from those pages first. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You are either going to have to nominate Template:Masculism sidebar for deletion or propose that it is reformatted. We can't just have a template and not have it used, or not have it used on the articles it has designated as central to the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've thought about trying to reformat it so that it is mainstream and not fringe. (It could be named something like "The Human Male", for example, and instead of having a big link to "Men's Rights" it could have a big link to "WikiProject Gender Studies", etc.) But then...wouldn't it be kind of silly to have a big sidebar that says something like "part of a series on men" when the entire encyclopedia is a series on men... WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda A bit late to this but the Men's rights movement portal has been deleted WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Men's rights movement. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the links to Man, Boy, and Masculinity from both Template:Masculinism and Template:Masculism sidebar, since none of the target articles had any information on masculism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to revert. It is the masculism article which references man, boy, and Masculinity. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See the recent talk thread. "Man" and "boy" aren't subtopics of, or defined in terms of, "masculism", nor is "masculinity" (rather the opposite in the last case). Per WP:NAVBOX, the subject (masculism) should be mentioned in all the articles, and all the articles should refer to each other to a reasonable extent. From what I can see, that isn't the case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Thank you for referring me to a talk thread which includes only yourself, from a few hours ago. These templates seem to be constructed specifically to mirror one another, so let's see if you've applied the same standards to the other set of articles:

• girl - has both {{Feminism sidebar}} and {{Feminism}} - no mention of feminism in the article - you have not removed the templates
• woman - has {{Feminism sidebar}} - one mention of feminism in the article marked with {{citation needed}} - you have not removed the template
• femininity - has both {{Feminism sidebar}} and {{Feminism}} - has a summary-style section focusing on feminism - no action required, according to you

It seems like you have not applied the same standards to girl and woman that you stated above. It also seems like you didn't consider resolving your concerns in the other way, which would be to add the necessary mentions to the articles which are involved (or do nothing and acknowledge that these articles are related to each other implicitly). As such, I'm reverting to the status quo, and you are free to gather consensus, help make the changes you feel are necessary to the articles, or leave your concern on the relevant talk pages and let someone else take care of it.

Added: I'll also point out per mention of the portal above that a simple solution would be to just link to Portal:Gender studies. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

However the templates are constructed, feminism and masculism are not mirrors of one another except in the most abstract sense. That said, I haven't looked at Girl or Woman yet, but I would support the actions you indicate. Since navboxes are very similar to categories, I think we should apply the same standards of verifiability and neutrality as we would to categories, and ask ourselves whether "masculism" is a defining characteristic of the linked articles. While that's arguably the case for the those under "Movements" and "Notable persons" in both templates, it's not the case for Boy or Man. I don't think we should be implying that such general topics are closely connected to a fringe area of concern that's mostly connected to a very particular kind of contemporary politics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Woman just now, I see a total of four mentions of either "feminism", "feminists", or the "feminist movement". So I think that article does belong in {{feminism sidebar}}. Girl is more marginal – the term is mentioned in a couple references but not in the text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the parity on both sets of templates is worth preserving, and the terms mentioned are central enough to them. The WP:NAVBOX concerns are surmountable by adding mentions of the central topic to the articles. Alternatively, if you want an WP:IAR justification, the links are just darn convenient to have in both nav template sets and not worth losing. -- Netoholic @ 04:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Parity between feminism and "masculism" is WP:FALSEBALANCE. There's a reason my spellchecker underlined one of those terms in red but not the other. Really, the "masculism" boxes should probably be deleted. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's one POV. But I'm not arguing POV over the topics... I'm arguing for parity in Wikipedia navboxes that serve the same relative function in parallel sets of articles. Added: and as for your spellchecker, its because "masculism" is an uncommon spelling. I've put in an RM to resolve this. -- Netoholic @ 04:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems backwards to include these links based on the potential to add material on masculism to the target articles – that raises the question of whether such material would be duly weighted there. I'm inclined to doubt that such a fringe view deserves that kind of mention. In any case, working out those issues should be the first step.

I don't think the convenience of these links is enough to outweigh the policy-based objections (notably WP:NPOV). Any article relating to the subject is going to have links to at least one of these topics already, and the others are easy enough to type in the search bar. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

These simple navigation links have been in the templates for several years. Let's wait for additional input and keep WP:STATUSQUO. There is no consensus for any particular change, and there is WP:NORUSH. You've raise the issues, now give some time for people to react/respond and fix what can be fixed. I note you still haven't touched the feminism templates, so your one-sided, sudden, intense push and edit-warring on the masculism templates is looking more and more like POV editing. Same goes for now trying to cite WP:FRINGE about a topic which is clearly not a "fringe theory", but is acknowledged as an ideology that has many supporters. Relax please. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• In response to the initial question: no, the movements are of course not equivalent. Masculism has no place on "Man" or "Boy". The false balance is clear: Masculism#History dates the movement back to the 1980s, whereas first-wave feminism originates in the 1800s. And this is more of a sidenote, but the article on masculism is in horrific shape: it reads "One of the first movements that aimed towards promoting a better understanding of the forces applied to men within society was the [1980s] mythopoetic men's movement", but of course the century-old academic discipline of feminist studies is dedicated precisely to the forces applied to men (and to women) within society. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Some potential alternatives to having a Masculism sidebar on the articles for Man, Boy, etc:
    • The Feminism sidebar. The goal of feminism is equality of the genders and therefore it concerns males as well as females.
    • A new side bar that doesn't exist yet. Perhaps a Gender Studies sidebar that could compliment the bottom-of-the-article Gender Studies template that already exists. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Masculism#History (and many other parts of the article) needs a good deal of correction. It has a more common spelling "masculinism", and that appeared right alongside "feminism" (Nash's Pall Mall Magazine, 1915). Actually, going back even earlier, both terms originated as descriptions of people who physically exhibited the secondary/minor sex traits of the opposite sex (The Medical Fortnightly, Volumes 31-32, 1907) - what might today be called "butch" or "effeminate" I suppose today. That said, I'm not sure why the origin dates would matter in the least to the question at hand, which is how best to add navigation to the set of articles for men, like we have for the set of articles related to women. As for WanderingWanda's suggestions.. you must be trolling. Is that really the definition they teach in school today? I'm almost tempted to say go ahead because I'd love to see the laughs at Wikipedia's expense when screenshots of Feminism sidebars and iconography being used on male-specific articles gets spread around. If that's a real suggestion, you're out-of-touch with wider society. -- Netoholic @ 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and added the Feminism sidebar to Man. (As for the idea that people might laugh at it, well, I figure it is good to spread laughter in the world!) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender-blind

Please comment. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)