Talk:Feminism

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweeder13 (article contribs).

Article adoption request

Hi,

Marvi Sirmed is a feminist from Pakistan. If more people do not come forward it won't be a supersize that article Marvi Sirmed likely to get credit of most defamed & vandalized Pakistani feminist article on English Wikipedia.

So making this article adoption request to rescue & protect the same.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.142.234 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Emancipation of women" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Emancipation of women. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleting information about alternative definitions

What is the reason for deleting information about alternative definitions from such dictionaries as “Macmillan Dictionary”, “Collins English Dictionary”, “Cambridge English Dictionary”, “Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English”, etc? The information points out a different key notion. Leaving the information out may lead to misunderstanding of the headword, may it not? The passage was:

Alternative definitions have rights of women rather than equality of sexes as their key notion.

— Fobemipa (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Such a change requires consensus , rather than a declaration on your part that the existing references and definitions shall be ignored because you found another one. You're also breaking formatting. Get consensus here first before embarking on a redefinition in an article that has passed quality review as a Good Article. And as you say, that's a alternate definition, not a primary definition. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is consensus needed when there are reliable sources i.e. authoritative dictionaries that are globally used to find definitions? How can the current definitions and references be ignored if the definitions mentioned by me are clearly marked as alternative? Moreover, no redefinition took place – the information was published alongside the current definition. I don't think I broke formatting, if you disagree, be more specific. I find the deletion unjustified and intend to restore the fragment shortly. – Fobemipa (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia requires consensus, not the determination of a committee of one that they have the only correct view. And yes, your insertion of "authoritative" was out of place. A lot of other editors have wored on this article, and it has been extensively reviewed. Get agreement from other editors. 22:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, you didn't mean to say that I view myself as “a committee of one” with “the only correct view”. Why was the ‘insertion of “authoritative”’ “out of place”? – Fobemipa (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, this does require consensus, because the article is the work of many editors and many past discussions. I notice we've actually had this discussion before. If you make the change again then you will be reverted, which accomplishes nothing for any of us. Please be a bit less combative.

I'm not necessarily opposed to all suggestions of reworking the first paragraph to be more representative of the subject. Perhaps rather than the second and third sentences being about academic theory and "gender stereotypes" and "educational and professional opportunities", we could move some of the feminist movement stuff up to the top. I'd like to mention women's rights and women's suffrage in the first paragraph (and we could also list women's education and women in the workplace to avoid removing the "educational and professional opportunities" content). I think these would be a better way to illustrate the listed dictionaries' secondary definitions than simply stating them. And the second sentence, Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unfairly within those societies, seems to be skirting around a definition of patriarchy, perhaps the most important thing to cover when giving due weight in the lead to the topic of ideology and theory. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

“I notice we've actually had this discussion before”. Sorry, but I can't agree with you. Then we discussed the definition given in the article, now we're dealing with differing definitions. Then I couldn't understand why the definition was the way it was, now I can't understand why information about differing definitions from online sources widely cited in Wikipedia can't be included in the article without achieving consensus on the “Talk” page. Anyway, I posted a section below aimed at reaching the consensus. – Fobemipa (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Fobemipa: Dictionaries are only authoritative for spelling and nothing else. Their definitions are only there to confirm that you have the right word, not to properly explain the topic.

I mean, really, if your doctor said you had a particular disease, and the dictionary used a slightly different word or phrase for one of the symptoms, would you tell your doctor that they're wrong because the dictionary said so?

Dictionaries are not encyclopedias. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

“I mean, really, if your doctor said you had a particular disease, and the dictionary used a slightly different word or phrase for one of the symptoms, would you tell your doctor that they're wrong because the dictionary said so?” No, I wouldn't. I would let them know about the discrepancy, because I would want to make sure they're going to make an informed decision. Not being qualified to contradict doctors in their domain, I still may doubt they're absolutely correct about their diagnoses, as well as you may doubt that I understand the difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias. Do you really think achieving equality of the sexes and making women's rights equal to those of men are “slightly different?”— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fobemipa (talk • contribs)

The only real difference would be that the former definition more openly affects third gender and nonbinary individuals, while the later is silent on them. One could read first wave feminism into the latter definition, but that's not what we do here. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@ian.thompson: re “ Dictionaries are only authoritative for spelling and nothing else. Their definitions are only there to confirm that you have the right word, not to properly explain the topic.” you FUNDAMENTALLY have misrepresented “dictionaries” here. Dictionaries are not spelling bee tools, this would be what is called a prescriptive dictionary, Most dictionaries are Descriptive dictionaries that are authoritative sources on the meaning and usage of words. High levels of scholarship by experts in many fields from entomology to the subject matter Of the word do deep research in order to be authorities on definitions. They are eminently more authoritative on the definition of a word like “feminism” then the self appointed committee who has written this entry. Please see Wikipedia article to understand this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

Before dismissing dictionary definitions the “committee” needs to demonstrate understanding of the authority for the dictionary being cited.

@febomita is told in this discussion to “be less combative” for simply defending their position, Which looks like common sense to me, that including a range of well researched authoritative definitions of feminism from respected source dictionaries sheds light on the topic. I do not understand how this is controversial. While telling the editor to “be less combative” she (I’ll assume) is also attacked in a rude way, accused of attempting to be “a committee of one” with “the only correct point of view” ... ie she is accused of arrogance for having the temerity to try and add sourced authoritative and clarifying information into this article (which I have to say, as a lifelong feminist, I found fairly un-illuminating and patchy).

I do not know what the qualifications are of the committee behind this article, but it indeed reads like it was written by committee as it stands.

The article includes a number of random and at times inaccurate claims that are followed by “citation needed”. How are uncited claims left in the article, while authoritative cited material is deleted?

I came to the talk page to see what could be done about some of that uncited “information”, but am left with the impression that any attempt on my part to engage is likely to be met with hostility.

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia struggles to engage new editors. I see that any content level change is nigh impossible if even the dictionary is out of bounds.

I’d like to see an apology in this discussion to this @febomita for attacking their motivation when from the outside I see someone who tried to make a reasonable and non destructive edit

I am curious on the ratio of men to women working on this article! Jennpublic (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding information about definitions with different key notions to the article

There are definitions of feminism with different key notions. Here are some examples taken from some widely known online dictionaries:

The belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state.
– Cambridge Dictionary

The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
– Lexico (Oxford)

The belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
A movement that works to achieve equal rights for women.
– Macmillan Dictionary

The belief and aim that women should have the same rights, power, and opportunities as men.
– Collins Online Dictionary

The belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
– Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

As you see they focus on women's rights rather than on equality of sexes / genders. It may be a good idea to add a passage to the article informing that there are definitions with such a focus. If we agree that the aforementioned sources are descriptive dictionaries then we may have to agree that they reflect how a considerable number of people define the term. If we include the information in the introductory section of the article, we might help Wikipedia readers to form a more balanced idea of what feminism is. In order to do that consensus is needed, so if there are any objections, please, post them in this section. – Fobemipa (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia derives content from full academic sources, not dictionaries. Dictionaries cannot provide the context that is needed. Find academic publications and full-length journalism, not dictionaries. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

“Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources in support of articles”. It does not categorically demand them, it “generally prefers” them. Besides that, we're not talking about replacing the current definition or broadening it, we're talking about informing the reader that there are widely accepted definitions with different key notions recorded in authoritative sources. – Fobemipa (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You've also been told that Wikipedia favors specialist sources over generalist ones, and that dictionaries are only authoritative for spelling and nothing more. You've even acknowledged that dictionaries are not specialist sources. Repeating arguments that even you have (even if you don't realize it) admitted have been countered is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH are appropriate here, this being the third discussion Fobemipa has opened on this subject, the second being the section directly above. There is a clear lack of consensus so far, the objections being those in this section and the previous. — Bilorv (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)