Template talk:Feminism sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Feminism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

New Feminism vs. Fourth Wave[edit]

I think "New Feminism" should be included in the Feminist bar. It is significantly different in theory and proposals than other forms of Old Feminism and is considered by some as the "fourth-wave" of the Feminist Movement.

Fourth-wave feminism would be a lot more appropriate than 'new feminism'. If you want to start a page on 4th wave feminism and put it on the template, go for it. --Helenalex 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it might be too early to say or define "fourth-wave" feminism yet, and New feminism as a feminist movement has been going by that specific name.

It think it will continue to be consecutive "waves of feminism." The reason being is that we as a society continue to marginalize and sub group people. Third wave feminism shed light on groups that were and are still socially otherized. Therefore, as a result, "global feminisms" came about. However, as a result more subgroups and new otherized people are still being ignored. The more we as as a society grow to become politically correct; we grow further apart. Ulitmately, the gaps are not being bridged. Until then, we will still have consecutive waves of feminism.Aharper12 04:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduced Footprint[edit]

This template has gotten quite large, so I've taken some steps to reduce its footprint. First, I removed the redundant "feminist" label from almost every subtype. Marxist feminism, New feminism, Postmodern feminism... they're all feminism, it doesn't need to be restated every time. This saved on horizontal space and allowed me to put the subtypes (as well as a other sections) in columns. Some other rearranging, and the template still has all the items it originally had, but takes up far less real estate on the pages it's used on. Neitherday 00:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the Lang picture is a better picture overall, but what's the connection to feminism? The original picture was of an international woman's day demonstration, which made sense. KellenT 11:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, Woman-power emblem.svg, Womanpower logo.jpg or Igualtat de sexes.svg, would seem to be more relevant, if obvious, choices. KellenT 11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

could we just go without the picture, please? It adds no value and just wastes screen space in the transcluding article. If there is a fitting image that can be transcluded, the choice should be left with the editors of the individual articles, on a case-by-case basis. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the original image and the equality symbol are both good for this template. The original had the advantage of showing non-western women and showed that feminism is an ongoing movement and not just a historical one. The symbol is good because it represents simply the aim of feminism. In my opinion, the template is much poorer without an image. I think images always add value to Wikipedia, because they help make articles much more readable and attractive. You could argue that no category sidebar really needs to have an image, but most of them do, because visuals help people identify the category quickly. --Aronoel (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I liked the picture. It was generic enough to fit any feminism article. When an image specific to an article should be added, an image in the sidebar won't prevent adding another image to the article. And I agree that images in moderate quantity make articles more attractive and readable. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How is the picture of the women's rally an icon? Also, icons are allowed in infoboxes per WP:MOSICON. --Aronoel (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I really liked the old photo. So that's my 2 cents. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry didn't notice you added a picture now, but to be honest I think it looks better without it Gnevin (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
What was the objection to the icon? I like all the ones Kellen suggested above, or the one I added. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The objection is that it's decoration Gnevin (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's useful (see my previous comments). "Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" is under "acceptable use" in WP:MOSICON. Anyway, I prefer the women's demonstration picture. Most people in this discussion seemed to approve of it. --Aronoel (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Aronoel, I removed the image again. Can you say what your objection is to the symbol? It would seem to be unquestionably about feminism, and otherwise neutral, so I'm thinking it would be the best thing to go for. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the female symbol if there is no acceptable alternative. I think it's better than no image. However, I think it's not ideal because it suggests (to me at least) that feminism is about women instead of women's equality. This is only an important distinction because detractors go out of their way to define feminism as being only concerned with promoting women's interests. For that reason I think the women's demonstration picture better illustrates a "movement aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women." What do you see as a problem with this image? --Aronoel (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear that a women's trade union march on International Women's Day would be interpreted by all as a feminist one. This—Woman-power emblem.svg—is recognized as a feminist symbol, rather than a generic one for women, so would that work for you? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That one is okay too, although I still have the same concerns. Also, I don't know if it should be pink. It would be nice if there was a free image of an officially feminist demonstration, but I"m having trouble finding one. The female symbol and the woman power symbol seem good in the meantime. Also, if you think that the women's demonstration image doesn't have a clear enough connection to feminism, it might be a good idea to discuss it at Talk:Feminism because it's still being used as the main image for Feminism. --Aronoel (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add the symbol for now and keep looking for a photograph of an explicitly feminist gathering. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks good, thanks for adding it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I agree on the photo going because it was from a different purpose, and I like the symbol, but I also like a picture, and here's one I suggest: a women's suffrage demonstration that actually is probably a modern NOW demo. The picture is apparently not in a Wikimedia project and I don't have a scanner, but it's a U.S. postage stamp and maybe someone can scan it. See a discussion. U.S. stamps can be reproduced within legal limitations and some already appear in Wikimedia. I can postally mail a mint stamp to some address, if anyone can suggest where to. There's also an earlier (1970?) 6-cent U.S. women's suffrage stamp which shows, I think, both a demo and a voter; I haven't checked if that's already in Wikimedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Those sound like they might be good. --Aronoel (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Surprising me, it turns out that scanning commercially into a PDF costs about the same as postally mailing the stamps, unless there's a surprise awaiting me when I try. So I'll try to do that over the next few days, and hopefully try uploading this weekend. I have both stamps, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The scanning cost a lot more than I expected and the subsequent file prep took hours because large files are slow in memory when swapping is necessary. At least the quality is as good as the stamps allow, but the 1995 design is not clear, since it's rather artistic, and I don't know if any Wikimedia policy allows clarifying an image (if labeled that we did so) by changing colors and so on (so I didn't, and even trying wasn't easy). At any rate, the images are uploaded: the 1995 stamp probably showing a NOW demo for the ERA and the 1970 Woman Suffrage stamp.
But now that I've gone to all this trouble, I'm not a big fan of them, after all. They have some positive qualities, but these may be too U.S.-centric, and the photo-based design is probably too complex for small-scale use, even with cropping. On the other hand, the theme of voting has some world-wide applicability and the Votes for Women 1970 illustration is clear. The latter includes a man; there may be sexism in his role in the picture. But I'm leaving all those decisions to whomever would like to edit this template.
Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the second one, but I agree it's not ideal. If we were to use something like that this one would probably be better. Thanks for uploading them, though. Let's keep looking and hopefully we can find something better for the template. --Aronoel (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No icon is needed , this is just decoration Gnevin (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON: "Appropriate use. Icons may be helpful in certain situations: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox."--Aronoel (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Key word is repeated , this is not repeated usage Gnevin (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The icon is informative, makes the infobox look better, and there's consensus to use it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree with your first two points but there does appear to be con Gnevin (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion imminent[edit]

Erm, I may have unintentionally triggered a deletion discussion about the image used in this template. I know less than zero about image licensing, so if one of you is a Commons expert, can you please jump in? Thanks, and sorry for accidentally poking the hive with a stick... Accedietalk to me 19:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

About the image again[edit]

This template did not have a logo before 2011, and I'm intrigued why the current one was chosen. It was originally uploaded in 2006, and it represents "a symbol used by radical feminists in the 1960s and 70s in Germany". Is it really the most suitable logo for this template, or is one needed anyway? Obviously the raised fist symbolizes resistance but I don't think it can be seen as somehow being the most relevant symbol of feminism. I don't think it adds much value. --Pudeo' 21:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support simply removing the image. it's decorative, and does not add significant value. Frietjes (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to see a source where that symbol is used in serious contexts – not just some street murals or T-shirts. And as a symbol for feminism as a whole, not just radical feminism. It's a rather selective decoration, indeed. --Pudeo' 21:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It was used prominently on the cover of two Sisterhood Is ... books by Robin Morgan, listed at the raised fist page. The design is not merely decorative; it is a significant part of feminist history. I'll revert the template shortly. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I support this notion. The symbol is widely used by a far spectrum of feminist organizations, radical or not. I can't speak for most of the world, but in Scnadinavia it's used by most organization (either by logo, pamphlet, activist materials, newspapers and so forth), and is not a symbol just used by "street murals or T-shirts". The symbol still represent the history and the struggle of the feminist movement and such is a good choice to be used as a template symbol. (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
given that there are two editors here in support of its removal, you probably shouldn't simply revert the change without further discussion. Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It was discussed previously on this talk page and consensus evidently was to keep it. Is there new information against it? Nick Levinson (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus can change. It seems redundant to me, since there is already the same image in the portal link. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
What was the concensus? If I look at the whole discussion, people supported the picture (of Muslim feminists protesting/US feminists) more than the svg logo. After agreeing to use a photograph, SlimVirgin and Aronoel agreed to add the logo – Gnevin opposed it and they both reverted it once., in your edit note you said I have to find evidence that it is not used by the majority of mainstream feminists. I believe the burden of proof lies with the side the side that claims it is commonly used. I don't think one book series is enough. --Pudeo' 02:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Expand the list Women and Femininity; women in politics; other[edit]

Add to the list Women and Femininity the wordings "Female condition from conception to birth and immediately after", "Female infants", "Female children", "Women's senility", so:

Women · Girls · Female condition from conception to birth and immediately after · Female infants · Female children · Women's senility · Femininity

or elseway (the first section can include themes like, e.g., Female infanticide, Female genital mutilation, etc.). These ones could be also start-ups for articles or sections of articles or rewriting of these.

Else, we can add them, maybe with "Girls", in a new section "Women's ages".

Also the template must consider not just suffragettes and suffragists and suffrage, but also women in politics and, historically, as rulers or historical persons, in the sections "History", "Lists and Indexes" and also in a specific list of the template "Women in politics", with sublists about female rule, female rights of exercising politics and female politicians, female political questions and their addressing by politicians, female and male ones, and politics in general geographically and generally. Again, these ones can be also start-ups for further treatison or rewriting.

Add also in the list Concepts or elsewhere the entries Human female sexuality and Female education.

Mormegil (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, for the most part, because the navigation template is mostly about feminism and links to a small number of non-feminism pages are to very large topics that in turn can link to elsewhere. Sexuality and female ruler articles are not mainly about feminism although feminism is relevant to them; for instance, many female rulers were not feminist. Even female genital mutilation is a phenomenon to which feminism responds, but the phenomenon exists without feminism, although an arguent could be made to link to that article. And we don't generally link to articles not yet written; articles can have redlinks (links to nonexistent destination pages) but navigation aids should not, although feel free to write any missing articles, even as stubs. If there are not enough navigation templates to accommodate your suggestions, feel free to create templates and add them to appropriate articles; it's possible to create a template by copying an existing one and then modifying it. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Add also in the list Concepts or elsewhere the entry Gendercide. (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (time zone uncertain) (Posted by Nick Levinson (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC) because it was added to what appears to be someone else's post, which is generally not done on talk pages; at the same time, it was removed from the other post.)
No, but, along that line, femicide should be added, so I did. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Feminazi" — seriously?[edit]

Is the inclusion of feminazi under the concepts tab really appropriate? I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If anyone wants to re-add it, I would appreciate if they would say why here. Thanks.--Witan (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It was readded by someone without explanation, so I will go ahead an remove again. Obviously it is not a concept in feminism. Jazzcowboy (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

please add[edit]

Male privilege -- (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Add intersectional feminism to the types of feminism category?[edit]

There's already an article about intersectionality, which is a fundamentally feminist concept, but it's not linked to *anywhere* in the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolstoyan at Heart (talkcontribs) 02:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, intersectionality should be in there, either under theory or under types of feminism, considering its influence on the mainstream current of feminism right now... Jan sewi (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016[edit]

Under the Legacy section, this paragraph: "Many women write to Hanna in hopes of reviving the Riot Grrrl Movement. Hanna says, “Don’t revive it, make something better".[53] In 2010 Girls to the Front: The True Story of the Riot Grrrl Revolution, by Sara Marcus, was published. It is the first published history of the Riot Grrrl movement.[54][55] Sara Marcus herself had attended Riot Grrrl meetings.[56] As of now there are approximately ten weekly Riot Girl meetings nationwide, and bands multiplying faster than can be counted.[44]"

The final sentence, "as of now there are..." is misleading, because the citation references an article written in 1992. This would be appropriate somewhere else in the article, but not in a paragraph talking about reviving the Riot Grrrl Movement today in the 201X's. (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wrong page. This page is for the template. You appear to be referring to an article. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)