Talk:Feminist science fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Sex in speculative fiction

IP editor[edit]

An IP editor keeps deleting has now twice deleted what seems to me to be a relatively non-controversial lede sentence, which basically introduces the section. The most recent deletion (see diff) has an incomprehensible edit summary that does among other things mention me for self-referencing. It's true, I did self-reference. The IP editor had deleted material as "unreferenced" in an earlier edit (see diff). I reverted the blanking, which was not well-described by the edit summary, and then went through and cited the material that was unreferenced, and pulled the cites from other wikipedia articles. (See diff encompassing several individual edits.) I didn't add any new "self-referencing" cites; just copied from previously cited material in WP. The specific material with the reference to my cite is on Susan Wood (science fiction). I didn't add it, and it's fine with me to delete it; I think the material is adequately cited otherwise.

That's all just by way of explanation since it seems the IP editor is suggesting something faintly improper. or whatever.

But mostly I just want to document this in case the IP editor would care to discuss, or if some other editor wants to handle the issue. --Lquilter (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • First (and later) edits: It was a removing of unsourced stuff, because it was unsourced. (Maybe the template citation needed or moving to talk page could be better, but now it's too late anyway.)
  • Frankenstein resp. "connection? (regarding Frankenstein; as women writer + SF =/= feminist SF)": A science fiction (SF) story written by a woman is not necessarily feminist science fiction. So the connection is vague. As the article doesn't claim that it's FSF, it's not wrong.
  • Self-referencing: There was no saying that it's wrong even though it might have some negative connotation. Technically anyone could self-reference and do it in a way so that others do not notice that there is a self-referencing. The mentioning simply had the reason that I don't know and don't judge whether or not it's ok with WP rules or whether or not the source is credible.
  • "Women writers have played key roles in science fiction and fantasy literature, often addressing themes of gender"
    • "writers" (plural) and "key roles" (plural, kind of judging): A story written by a woman or feminist (or man, but that's not the topic) doesn't necessarily play a key role in SF or fantasy literature. I couldn't name two women who wrote at least one story which played a key role in SF or fantasy literature. (I couldn't name a man either nor do I know events/stories which played key roles in SF or fantasy literature, but that's not the topic.)
    • "often": "often" is vague word. It could be understood/interpreted as it's used to emphasise something, or even misunderstood as "more often". As there are more women than feminists, it seems more likely that there are more normal SF stories written by woman than FSF stories wirtten by woman. So it seems more likely that something like "sometimes" is more fitting. A more neutral word - especially without any source - might be "also".
    • To sum it up: it needs some source/reference. A more neutral and more trivial way - so there should be no need for any reference - is something like "Women [also] wrote science fiction and fantasy stories, and also science fiction and fantasy stories addressing themes of gender".

-IP, 06:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)



Could we add this as a master list of sources within the page? Or should this page be more dedicated to the schools of feminist thought and the authors who contribute to them? Should we exclude novels that do not directly critique hegemonic culture, but have women and gender non-conforming leads? Just because a book has equal representation for all genders does not mean it is necessarily feminist. -Daisy --Dahlsto2 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved these lists here for citing and deciding which examples are actually important to discus.

Hi Dahlsto2 --
Where did you move the lists from? The list's have got a number of canonical titles, but are missing some, and have a number of titles that are definitely not canonical. So pruning / discussing is a good idea. Criteria for inclusion is always hard, especially on a list of "notable" works. So you'll have to start with a definition. The "SF" part is going to be problematic, because of course "feminist SF" is used by some broadly as "spec fic" and by others as "science fiction". The "feminist" is also problematic because, as you note, questions of whether depictions of a "strong female character" or "egalitarian society" are enough have been real questions. Because Wikipedia is not presentist, my own take is to address the challenges and questions up-front, rather than making the decision and trying to justify it. In other words, acknowledge that there are different views about this, specify which are the mainstream views, or at what points in time which views were most prominent.
Lastly -- I think you noted that you're a relatively new editor on Wikipedia; you might check into the Wikipedia:Lists guidelines (especially the Manual of Style which is the most complete guidance). People have strong opinions about lists and lists are also very popular places for self-promoters to inject their opinions.
I'll start a note below about particular titles.
--Lquilter (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Examples in prose[edit]

Examples of comic books and graphic novels[edit]

In film and television[edit]

titles for particular discussion[edit]

prose - definite keeps

These all won awards, or have been cited repeatedly as examples, or were highly influential.

prose -- up for discussion

prose -- recommend pruning
comic books & graphic novel --definitely keep

comic / graphic -- up for discussion
Film and TV -- definitely keep

  • Note the "SF" definition problems with super-heroes, Xena, Buffy. --Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Film and TV -- discussion

Organization of Page[edit]

I am also working with Daisy on the organization of the page and am currently developing a section to add to the recurrent themes section. I've got a few paragraphs in the works about gender and sexuality as themes in science fiction. There is a lot that has been said about gender and am working on trying to get an adequate summary without overwhelming the article and section with information that could be pruned down into something more concise. This is the first work that I have done with wikipedia editing and look forward to more feedback as I go along! -Sanyelle SanyelleLee (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to myself and a few other users organizing the Literature portion of the page to be in chronological order? We are attempting to add more authors and make the page easier to find info on.

--Dahlsto2 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Dahlsto2 -- There needs to be a considerably fuller discussion in literature. Right now, the discussion seems to be generally chronological: The early antecedents; the 19th/early 20th century; the 1920s; then the 1960s/70s. Is this part of your "list" proposal (above), which I think is good? or is this meant to be something separate? If the latter, I think it's difficult to have a discussion that is strictly chronological; that's more of a list approach.

setting up talk archives[edit]

Since there is some dedicated energy to working on the page (welcome Dahlsto2 & collaborators), I thought it would be helpful to clear away the old discussions. Accordingly I set up a talk archive (see the archive box near the top of the page). Quick note about talk page protocol: Generally you start new threads at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist science fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)