Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism/Archive_3

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Takembeng + feminism

I just created an article on Takembeng, post-menopausal female protesters in Cameroon. There seem to be a lot of connections to feminism and feminist protests, but I feel like the connections of the page to wider feminism is not there. I'd really appreciate a read through from any Wikiproject Feminism editors and any additions as may be appropriate (a see also section would be great but I kept stumbling in trying to create one). I didn't even know if the project would consider it within the scope, so the project template isn't on the Talk page (feel free to add if you think it is appropriate). Any help appreciated. Ayuongni'i (Thank you in Kom). AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There's a problem with the way bot editing has created a number of inappropriate categorizations in Category:Postmodern_feminists. I discuss this further at Category_talk:Postmodern_feminists. There may be similar problems with other bot-categorized articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new how-to for publicists writing in Wikipedia

A majority of publicists in the U.S. are, I think, women. And, I suspect, a great many articles that are deleted within a week are created by publicists. So, helping publicists create articles that stay may help more women edit many articles, hopefully on non-client-driven subjects, too. I posted an essay that emphasizes what public relations people often need: Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing your client's work. Add to it if you wish. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veteran Feminists of America AfD'd

Up for AfD (Deletion) and just needs some beefing up since WP:RS do exist. CarolMooreDC 16:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for advice

Hello. Recently the page called Patsy Strang, after a discussion on the talk page led to concenssus, was changed to Philip Larkin's women, which is intended as a temporary name until we think of a better name for it. Biographies of Philip Larkin are unanimous in emphasizing the important roles several women played in his life and thus either directly or indirectly in his poetry. If anyone would like to come to the talk page to give advice on a more appropriate name, or perhaps to give suggestions on what else apart from basic biogs should be included on the page, we would be very grateful. This topic seems to be growing in importance in Larkin studies, and it would be nice if we could get ourselves set off on the right foot. Thank you, almost-instinct 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Would "Women associated with Philip Larkin" be a little bit more respectful? Sorry I am not a student of Larkin but I don't believe he owned anybody. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's a pretty bad title. It's like "Philip Larkin's binders full of women." :P SarahStierch (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoever picked that knew that we would be choosing something better in due course! I'll copy SL's suggestion to the discussion. Thank you for the thoughts (Philip Larkin's binders full of women sounds like it should be the page on his notorious cupboard of pornography) almost-instinct 18:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anita Sarkeesian

There is a move discussion at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#Requested move. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up - A topic ban proposal is being discussed here. More input from uninvolved project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rape culture

Could someone with knowledge on the subject keep an eye on Rape culture?

It's been edited off & on by User:Media-hound-_thethird. He or she posts long, just barely coherent posts to the talk page, and seems to have some strong issue with this article. Especially the "Origins" section. Anyone who disagrees, or even asks a clarifying question would be accused of having some sort of bias or intentionally sabotaging the article.

I don't know the subject well enough to carefully judge all Media-Hound's contributions, perhaps they're fine, but based on the history, I wanted to make sure that these changes have eyes on them.

(This issue was raised at the former Wikiquette Assistance Board here back in June, and resulted in Media Hound taking a voluntary break from editing the article, but now he or she is back.) APL (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have it watchlisted, but after a couple months of nonstop accusations (up to and including after asking them what pronouns they preferred - a basic sign of decency in the circles I'm used to running in) I got very tired of trying to reason with them. Several other editors, some far more experienced than me, experienced this as well. The user's contributions about rape culture in various countries are usually good if sometimes stilted, but they have some views about the usage and history of rape culture that they're particularly pushy about. Unfortunately, trying to interact with rude editors is rarely successful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A note: the editor was banned for several months by an admin. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Tomboy, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)Reply[reply]

Gloria Allred

I'd appreciate some more eyes on Gloria Allred. Her legal career section was in need of some prose, but there has been some recent deletion of content that seems unwarranted. If anyone can help shape this into a better article, I would be in their debt. Gobōnobō + c 07:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labiaplasty and other plastic surgery articles

Please note discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Labiaplasty. Andreas JN466 17:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Birth of the US Rights for Women movement was in Britain?

I've been working for some years on theWorld Anti-Slavery Convention which was a meeting (and a famous painting) that took place in 1840. All the good abolitionist people were there from around the world (well the colonised bits) talking about ending slavery. However the silly Americans thought that when they were asked to send delegates then they thought this included women!! For some reason the women (and some men) got very upset when the women were told to sit behind a curtain and listen to what the men had to say. I had created dozens of articles about this one painting years ago but I hadn't done any work on the article for some time. However the author of the Zong massacre created a stub for the meeting so I have added my stuff to it. I created the article because I was interested in making an image map out of the painting - but I think this may be a "Top" or "High" importance article for "your project" as some leading US feminists resolved at the 1840 meeting that they would fix women's rights. Do join in, I think its an interesting anachronism (I hope) that women's rights were ignored at an abolitionist meeting. Victuallers (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sexist categories being reinstated

Are people here aware of this trend? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article request: Hortense Spillers, Hortense J. Spillers

IEG proposal aimed at improving coverage of topics that lay at the intersection of women and philosophy

Hi all - I just posted a draft of an individual engagement grant proposal aimed at improving the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics that lay at the intersection of women and philosophy through targeted academic outreach. If it's approved, I would be conducting the project along with Alex Madva and Katie Gasdaglis. I'm hopeful that if approved and carried out, it would go a long way towards addressing Wikipedia's under-representation of our targeted topic areas, and would create a scalable model of educational outreach to underrepresented disciplines that can be used in other fields. A lot more details are available on the meta page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah! Good work. I've mostly returned to editing my areas of interest. If only one didn't have to sleep, do housework or spend so much time entertaining the dogs :-) CarolMooreDC 03:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women's History Month is in March


Hi everyone at WikiProject Feminism!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

  • Improving biographies about women
  • Museums that focus on women and women's history

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and stop by SarahStierch's talk page with any questions! (based on post by User:SarahStierch to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Museums) --EarthFurst (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for sharing this, and please keep spreading the word. I'm a bit too busy with three jobs to do much in regards to leisure editing, so it'll take a village to make this March a success! SarahStierch (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female Chauvinism

Female Chauvinism needs a lot of work. Note that Female chauvinism (small "c") is a redir to Chauvinism#Female_chauvinism. Is that a better option? I may have been a bit hasty in doing a Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be best for both to redirect to Chauvinism#Female_chauvinism. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. A redirect makes the most sense. This article was just started last week by a new editor. Male chauvinism also redirects to Chauvinism. Gobōnobō + c 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query the edit I made on Kayden Kross's page (porn star / porn lobbyist), which was later removed as "unimportant".

On 6 July 2012 I made the following edit on Kayden Kross's page:

From June to September 2011 Kross co-presented fourteen podcast episodes of Kayden's Review with the comedian Dane Hanson. The podcasts were for Trigg.la, a spin-off podcast and blogging website operated by Kevin Spacey's TV/film production company Trigger Street Productions.

It was deleted 3 days later by MikeWazowski as "unimportant".

In recent years the mainstreaming of the pornography industry and the sexualization of the media has become a matter of much discussion and research. The podcasts were all filmed at Trigger Street's offices and I felt it was a valid point of interest that such a mainstream name / company should have this association. More recently Trigger Street Productions has announced it is set to make the film version of "50 Shades of Grey".

I was going to contact MikeWazowski but clicking on his user name I see that he is a prolific and experience editor and I think he may just argue against it on notability grounds. I thought, therefore, I would ask here first for opinions on whether attitudes to feminism have any influence on the 'note-worthiness' of contributions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)The Vintage FeministReply[reply]

Given the overall way Wikipedia works, the main thing you want is a reliable source making the observation that you can cite. If it's your personal observation, it's original research, which it is against Wikipedia policy to publish. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure it was deleted due to the tendentious relationship the material had to the subject of the article, Kayden Kross, and more importantly, it seems to be original research. Kayden Kross having a trigg.la podcast is relevant to her biographical article. If a verifiable third-party source has written about this as a conflict of interest, that too is relevant to her biographical article. Otherwise, issues about ownership of trigg.la belong under the article Trigger Street Productions, though I will note, original research, including original synthesis do not belong in any article. Also, not sure why this is a WikiProject Feminism issue at all. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex segregation article

Greetings all, As a part of Rice University's Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities minor, my Poverty and Gender class annually contributes to Wikipedia articles concerning gender bias and disparities. My partner and I have chosen to contribute to and overhaul the article titled "Sex segregation" as it is in dire need of more citations and a global perspective, among other things. The article is already under the scope of WP Feminisim. Our plan includes the following:
The name will be changed to Gender segregation (even though gender segregation is linked), as we believe that gender is more inclusive towards segregation not only between the biological sexes but between the socially constructed genders as well. We plan on reorganizing the article by starting off from a very broad, theoretical perspective, discussing scholarly definitions and causes of gender segregation, subsequently addressing different spheres of gender segregation in public and private realms. The current article does an adequate job of discussing some arenas in which gender segregation takes place, so we will definitely include the well-cited information the article currently contains. We plan to include contemporary examples, which not only facilitates a global perspective, but also provides an opportunity for multiple editors to continually update the article, maintaining high-quality work. Lastly, we want to discuss consequences (positive and negative) of gender segregations for all genders as well as critiques of gender segregation. There are many prominent theorists including Blackburn, Nussbaum, and Sen whose works we will be utilizing to analyze gender segregation underneath the realm of the Capabilities Approach that is prevalent in our Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities minor. We would love feedback from other editors and contributors of this project, especially concerning some of the potential problems we foresee including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral and encyclopedic tone since some research considers gender segregation to have positive outcomes while socially it is overwhelmingly negative, representing both genders, and distinguishing between sex and gender segregation. Any other technical or miscellaneous feedback is also more than welcome. Thanks so much!

Achresto (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Motherhood Penalty' Article

I am going to expand and revise upon the Wikipedia article “Motherhood penalty”. I will specifically be focusing on the perceived cultural tension between mothers and workers as well as employer bias, discrimination, and the effects of the motherhood penalty. Addressing the motherhood is penalty is important because it impacts the future success and equality of women, specifically mothers in the workforce. Women should not have to bear the penalty or burden of having children and a family. It is not fair for a woman to feel like she has to choose between a family and work or feel like she has to hide the fact that she has children because she doesn’t want to be viewed as less committed. Women already face inequality in the workforce seen through lower wages and lower number of women leadership positions. Being a mother on top of being a woman compounds that inequality. Acknowledging and awareness of the presence of the implicit bias towards mothers is the fist step towards changing this discrimination and inequality that currently exists. I would like to add sections on effects of the motherhood penalty, causes of the motherhood penalty, and employer bias. I plan to draw on case studies the work of Deborah Anderson, Melissa Binder, Michelle Budig, Paula England, and Shelley Correll. I would appreciate any comments or feedback.Mmcolson (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for advise

Hi. I’m writing an article about the Equality of Women in Tonga. This article is an necessary contribution to women’s equality research because women in Tonga are treated in a unique way. Culturally, women hold high position in society that men cannot hold, but legally, some of the rights of women are restricted. Looking at equality issues from this perspective should be insightful, but please give me any feedback you think might be helpful. Thank you allSioneF (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Human Trafficking article

I am a student from Rice University working on the human trafficking article for my poverty, gender, and development course. I plan on reorganizing the human trafficking article, editing its contents, and adding new sections. For example, I plan on introducing feminist and other perspectives on human trafficking, what the social impacts of human trafficking are in terms of its consequences on women and how they are perceived, and to add more to how popular media and religion participate in the discourse surrounding human trafficking, including major non-profit campaigns. Some sources that I plan to draw from include the journal of Anti Trafficking Review, which includes perspectives from voluntary sex workers who feel that anti-human trafficking programs undermine their well-being, Stephanie M. Berger's article on why the "end demand" movement is the wrong focus for anti human trafficking, and Molly Dragiewicz's article from Feminist Teacher on how to teach about trafficking in a way that allows for critical engagement. Any suggestions on what scholarly articles and other creditable sources to incorporate for my contribution would be very helpful.

Kayceeho (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings everyone! I am planning on editing the Birth Control page, subsection Africa. As of now the section only includes 3 sentences all of which are outdated. It is clear this section is underdeveloped and I am taking this opportunity to expand upon it. I understand that Africa is a big continent thus I will make sure to use facts that are relevant to the continent as a whole and if not I will make sure to note that. I also hope to include a new graphic image that may be more accurate. Some of the many sources I will be drawing from are "Family Planning in Sub Saharan Africa: Progress or Stagnation?" published by the Bulletin of the World Health Organization in 2011, "Low use of contraception among poor women in Africa, an equity issue” , and ‘‘HIV Transmission During Pediatric Health Care in Sub-Saharan Africa: Risks and Evidence’’published in the South African Medical Journal in 2004. Do you have any advice? Asiamcclearygaddy (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revision of Gender apartheid

Hello all! As a participant in the Wikipedia Education Program, I plan on revising the page for “gender apartheid.” Because WikiProject Feminism is intended for substantive pieces about women’s rights, I feel it is pertinent to include the article “gender apartheid” within its scope. Gender apartheid refers to the social and economic subordination of women, a phenomenon clearly distinguished from sex segregation in that a relationship of dominance exists (not only separation). Its connection to the disempowerment of women therefore qualifies it as an article belonging to WikiProject Feminism. The article’s talk page shows discrepancies and confusion over the topic, which is perhaps why it was nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted a few years ago. Since then, it has been restored, albeit remaining somewhat contentious of an article.

As it stands now, the article for “gender apartheid” is inadequate for conveying to readers detail about the topic. It is sparse in content and lacking in depth, scratching only the surface of a much more complex issue. With that in mind, improvement to the article is necessary to provide readers a greater understanding of gender apartheid’s distinction from sex segregation. Knowledge of this phenomenon is crucial to understanding yet another ongoing manifestation of gender inequality, one that prevails worldwide. With that in mind, my intended changes to the page are as follows: better defining the subject; improving content depth; including more academic references; and generally cleaning up the article according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Further details are available on the article’s talk page. All constructive feedback and ideas for revision are appreciated. Thanks in advance!

-JoyceChou (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please give feedback:Gender Equality in Honduras

There is not currently a page that covers the gender inequality in Honduras. I am currently doing research and gathering ideas on how I can best contribute to remedy this problem. The topics that I wish to cover are as follows: Reproductive health, empowerment, economic activity, women's participation in the labor force, employment segregation, gender wage disparity and educational attainment. Any feedback advice or information would be greatly appreciated. My main goal for right now is to expand the sources that I have on the topic or perhaps even a different search engine. I have been using google scholar, but I seem to be having a problem that the majority of sources that catch my eye must be purchased. Any help on that front would be appreciated. (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Steve MillerReply[reply]

Women Migrant Workers

I plan to write an article detailing and exploring the phenomenon of Women Migrant Workers. Specifically, I want to expound on the circumstances and atmosphere of those seeking work abroad, but also the economic impacts that these women make. Economically, they affect both the country in which they work, as well as the country from which they are from. Their economic ties to their families, and the opportunities abroad may or may not positively impact their families. I want to focus on their economic impacts, gains, and losses, but provide some background and human interest into the situations that these women face. This is not an article on sex trade or migrant sex workers. I believe that the feminist implications and the subject of women in migrant work is significant, and therefore a necessary contribution to the general topic of migrant work. Women play a key role in our economy, and specifically women who have to work abroad to care for their families. I would appreciate any feedback or ideas to "round out" this article. Whereas my intent is to focus on the economic impacts, I am not opposed to providing other details and exploring other parts of this topic. Erinbb1 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New 'Women in the Arab Spring' article

I'm planning on writing a new 'Women in the Arab Spring' article as part of my Poverty, Gender and Human Development course at Rice University. I will add the page to this WikiProject because the Arab world is notorious for its poor women's rights record and the Arab Spring represents a major opportunity to change that. The topic of women in the Arab Spring is not currently discussed in the Arab Spring article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I plan to cover the role of women before, during, and after the Arab Spring with my article (see the Arab Spring talk page for details) and would greatly appreciate any feedback on my plans. Thanks! Nadhika99 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creation of New Entry: Gender Disparities in Health

Hi everyone, I am part of a Wikipedia contribution class on Poverty, Gender, and Human Development at Rice University. I am thinking of creating a new entry titled: Gender Disparities in Health. The reason why I chose to join this WikiProject page is because I regard both Gender Equality in health as a feminist issue. Unfortunately, while gender equality has made much progress in areas like education and labor force participation, health inequality between men and women continues to plague many societies today.

Gender disparities in health have been well-documented. This is particularly true in certain developing patriarchal regions, such as South Asia. Scientific and medical research have shown that females tend to have better survival rates than males when given the same amount of nutrition and access to health care. However women tend to do poorer for many health outcomes in comparison to men in many developing nations. In 2008, the World Health Organization published a report showing that of the 15 countries with the highest adult mortality risk for women, 14 came from Africa and 1 from South Asia. With regards to female child mortality, most countries were from Africa and the Middle East. These trends have been attributed to many gender-discriminating factors, which in the long run would result in women experiencing poorer health outcomes. Apart from negatively affecting the lives and health of women, gender disparities in healthcare can also have undesirable implications on a nation’s development and progress. Health has a huge influence in shaping people’s lives; how we decide to manage people’s health often determines their level of social productivity. Considering that women contribute a great deal to society, the persistence of gender disparities in health can translate to large social and economic costs for nations.

Presently, despite the extensive discourse on and broad implications of gender disparities in health, there is no proper article or entry on the topic in Wikipedia. Moreover, information on the topic is not only sparse, but also inaccurate. Currently, the few discussions on gender disparities in health are restricted to a small subsection titled “Healthcare equity and sex” under the “Health Equity” page. However, even in this small section, there is absolutely no discussion of the health discrimination issues that women face. The content of the subsection focuses primarily on why men are disadvantaged in terms of receiving health care. Additionally, under another subsection which lists the factors that contribute to disparities in access to health care, there is no mention of gender. All in all, there is very limited discussion on gender disparities in health care within Wikipedia.

For this new entry, I plan to provide some background information on health inequality and how gender serves as an axis of differentiation that works against women. After this I plan to provide some examples and statistics of gender disparities that are currently in existence around the world. I also intend to include a section that describes some of the factors that result in gender disparities in health, like sex-selective abortion and preferential care. Following that, I will proceed to highlight the impacts and implications of having gender disparities, both socially and economically. Finally, I will list some of the countermeasures recommended by academics to address this issue, as well as some of the policies implemented that have led to a reduction of gender disparities in health. The entry will end with a ‘See Also’ section, where I will put up links of pages which relevant to the topics discussed. Some of the sources I plan to draw from and cite include World Development Reports and academic references, such as peer reviewed articles from various public health journals.

One of the concerns I have for this project is the topic being too broad/extensive for the amount of time I have in writing this article. Hence I am thinking of narrowing down my focus to discuss gender disparities in health within just one particular region. Based on the feedback I have received, I am thinking of South Asia but I am open to other recommendations for locales. I also really appreciate any feedback or comments on both my ideas and plans for writing this new entry. If you are interested in learning more, do chat me up for a more detailed description of the outline I have for this new entry! Thanks!

Benongyx (talkcontribs) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revising Low enrollment of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education and Careers article

As part of a class project, I plan to revise the Low enrollment of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education and Careers article and retitle it "Women in STEM (United States)". According to the notice at the top of the article page, this article is currently written “like a personal reflection or essay” and needs to be rewritten in encyclopedic style. While I do not plan to rewrite the entire article, I do plan to add a substantial amount of information and to possibly restructure and revise parts of the existing article. In particular, I wish to discuss the social, structural, and psychological factors that help explain the low numbers of women in STEM fields. Besides making the title more concise, I also wish to change the name of the article to reflect on both the challenges that women face in entering STEM careers and the progress they have made. There have been a number of articles written about the obstacles that women face in male-dominated occupations such as the ones in STEM fields. Many of my additions will focus on social psychological phenomena like stereotype threat and the Pygmalion effect, as well as social and structural phenomena like discrimination and the leaky pipeline. However, women have also made progress in entering STEM fields and certain STEM areas (e.g., Biology and Psychology) tend to have large numbers of women. It is important to recognize women's achievements and contributions in these fields. Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go to reaching full equality. In revising this article, I hope to give a comprehensive overview of the current state of Women in STEM careers while addressing many of the current issues with the existing article. I would appreciate any feedback and look forward to contributing to this project. Naomi FK (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revising the Femicide Article

I am a student at Rice University working with a partner who is looking to revise the current Wikipedia article on Femicide. The current Wikipedia article on Femicide is only a few paragraphs longs and utilizes very few resources in its discussion of the topic. Our goal is to greatly expand and reorganize the article, as well as use many more resources to offer a more NPOV. Although the existing article introduces the concept of femicide, it does not discuss in detail the many different kinds of femicide nor does it give differing examples of how, why and where femicide occurs world-wide. It also does not discuss much of the controversy the term offers, and arguments against the concept of femicide. A nuanced and neutral perspective is absolutely imperative on this subject in order to represent the many different facets of this issue, which this article does not currently offer. Our goal is to not just define and categorize femicide and its different manifestations, but also give an overview of how it occurs world-wide. We both realize that the scope of this article is quite large, and we wish to join it to this Project page not only because the topic is extremely applicable to Feminism, but also for the resources this project offers. We currently have found many resources on femicide from the author Diane Radford, but we wish to expand the source material we use. If anyone has suggestions on opposing viewpoint sources it would be incredible helpful. Listed below is our proposed outline for the revised article, any feedback would be much appreciated!

1 Definition
1.1 Specific definition

1.2 Distinction from other forms of homicide

1.3 Perpetrators of femicide

1.4 Historical development of the term

1.5 Controversy over term

2 Types of femicide

2.1 Intimate partner femicide

2.2 Racist femicide

2.3 Lesbicide

2.3.1 Corrective rape

2.4 Serial femicide

2.5 Mass femicide

2.6 Sex-selective abortion

2.7 Other

3. Femicide around the world

3.1 United States

3.1.1 Notable Cases

3.2 Latin America

3.2.1 Juarez

3.3 South Asia

3.3.1 Sex-selective abortion

3.4 Africa

4. Solutions

4.1 Legal Solutions

4.2 Policy
Robinkvest (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not that familiar with the topic, but do make sure that all the sources you use actually use the term "femicide." Even though we may consider various acts exactly that, unless a source also calls them that we cannot use it. That would be considered WP:Original research. {Added later: but if one source defines femicide as including certain kinds of killing, then it's ok to use articles (or as below see alsos) that are examples of that definition. And of course one can get away with anything one is not challenged on, though one should edit as if a critic is watching over one's shoulder :-) CarolMooreDC 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am Lena, Robin's partner working on this article, and I also wanted to make it clear that we would be linking to various other wikipedia articles that address femicide; for example, "Female homicides in Juarez" and "Female infanticide". If anyone has suggestions of other wikipedia pages that have already been created and would be considered Femicide please let us know! Thanks for the help! Lenasilva —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acid throwing article revision

Hi everyone! I am a student at Rice University and plan on revising the current Acid throwing article page, which has been deemed a high-importance article for WikiProject Feminism. As this issue discriminately affects women, especially those living in poverty, I realize that it is deeply affiliated with feminism. As the article now stands, it is rated as a B-class article. However, I hope to elevate the quality and scope of this topic by delving into the many sociological, cultural, and religious factors that propagate this crime. I also want to provide reliable, modern statistics and demographics describing the victims affected by such attacks. Moreover, I hope to offer a more global, inclusive perspective of this issue - as it now stands, it focuses solely on South Asia. I aim to cover acid throwing across the globe, and have found scholarly articles describing acid throwing in Uganda, Iran, and South America. Lastly, I plan to add a section describing possible solutions for this issue. I look forward to contributing to this WikiProject, and would greatly appreciate any comments/suggestions you might have for this revision. Thanks! Daniellam91 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postcolonial Feminism

My classmate and I are working on vastly improving the page on Postcolonial Feminism for one of our courses this semester. We would like to improve the clarity and organization of the page, but many of the articles that extrapolate on specific variants of feminism do not have a particular form or structure. Does anyone have advice on how to approach this project?

Also, it is possible that we will have the capability to update the two paragraphs on postcolonial feminism and third-world feminism within the variants subsection of the feminist theory page.

Thanks so much! Jessi.litman (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I would like to expand a little bit on what we will be doing to the Postcolonial feminism page. We want to rewrite and expand this article, which is currently ranked start class. This will involve adding more information to the current sections “History” and “Relationship to Western feminisms” and substantially revising the introductory part of the page. We will also be creating new sections “Theories and Ideologies” and “Critiques of Postcolonial feminism.” Any ideas that anyone has for resources or how to tackle revising this page would be much appreciated! Thanks!

Michellesynhorst (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be useful to distinguish between Postcolonial Feminism as described in the article and feminist movements in the formerly colonised nations. The former's concerns (about recognition by western feminism, analysing the intersections of race and colonial domination, etc) stem from the struggles of third world women living in the 'West' (btw, third world as a term has been more or less replaced by 'global South'). Feminisms in for example South Asia, East Asia or West Asia are movements organised around local issues, whether it is sexual violence in India or licensed sex workers in Taiwan or comfort women in Japan or definitions of women's work in most places. Do take a look at the old classic by Kumari Jayawardene, Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World (London: Zed Books, 1986) which has its own entry in Wikipedia. Happy to supply more references (from across Asia in particular, but also from the Caribbean and Africa).

Tniranjana (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at the Feminism in India entry in the EN Wikipedia. While it needs some editing, it provides a good overview of the history of the women's movement, and the citations as well as references for further reading are spot on. When you go through this entry, my point about the distinction between 'postcolonial feminism' and 'feminism in non-western countries' would be quite clear.

Tniranjana (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input needed at RfC on Rape culture

Input is needed at an RfC: Talk:Rape_culture#Request_for_comment_III. The question is whether material from an activist can be included in the Rape culture article. --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually what is needed even more is someone to rewrite the section on "Global rape culture" (see discussion for alternate names) in an NPOV way. No one has stepped up yet, including me. CarolMooreDC 14:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this of interest to this project?

Folks on this project might want to weigh in at this discussion: Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move_2_.28second_request.29. I noticed that all the articles in this move request are now titled "suicide of..." AND are 100% about either women/girls or boys alleged to be gay. On the surface, the discussion is over WP:AT, but IMHO, the discussion is really about if they deserve the dignity of having an article titled with simply their name, or if the "suicide of" title is because that's the "only" thing they are "notable" for. I know I'm inserting my own bias in this comment, but when I made the argument there that everyone notable enough for a WP article deserves, in basic human dignity, to have it titled Their name and not Sensationalistic thing about their death, I hadn't noticed that there was also the anti-female and anti-gay slant. Anyway, whether I'm right or wrong, I see a pattern and y'all may want to take a look and comment. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited Page

Check out the updated postcolonial feminism page! We worked all semester on it. Any additional edits are welcome. Jessi.litman (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC notification

There's an RfC at Talk:List of vegetarians#RfC: Images of women about the inclusion of images of female porn stars in that article, if anyone is interested. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in too many other projects and shitstorms (see above) to wade into that one, but once again, it appears we have yet more evidence of the notorious demographic skewing of wikipedia editors who just don't get it about respect and human dignity. I agree that the use of women's bodies is inappropriate exploitation in that context, FWIW. Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I understand about being overstretched, but it would definitely help if you'd express a view, especially as one editor has posted a notification to WikiProject Pornography. I'm anticipating the usual WP:NOTCENSORED argument, which misses the point, but it's appearing already. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing merger proposal needing input

There is a proposal that the Men and feminism article be split and merged into Pro-feminism and Antifeminism. Please add your input; comments; and share expertise >>>HERE<<<. Thank you. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender bias task force

There's a proposal here to set up a gender bias task force. Input would be very welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help cleaning up Category:Prostitutes

Yesterday, I discovered Category:Prostitutes. After looking through the subcategories I was appalled to discover that a large number of the listings in this category were based on uncited claims that the person once worked as a prostitute. For BLP articles, this is especially problematic, but even for non-BLPs we should not be listing people in occupational categories unless they had a notable career in that occupation or they self-identify with that profession (and it is cited as such). If a person worked for a year when they were 18 as a dishwasher, we don't put them in the Dishwashers category. I was especially appalled to find Andrea Dworkin categorized as a prostitute, considering she spend much of her life campaigning against prostitution. I've already removed some of the BLPs, but could use help cleaning up the rest. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before we do anything else, we should remove the category from all biographical articles that do not have a cited reference to their having worked as a prostitute.
Hold on - I've checked several of the bios recently removed, and almost all of them either had sources in the article already, or easily findable sources. While I agree with the general approach, before removing any category from any article, please at least do a cursory search to see if it can be established. Another categorizing machine has been known to remove "African-American" cats from tons of bios just because it isn't specifically referenced in the article, even though a cursory search would be able to establish this - so please search first (this applies to removal of any category, not just this one).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After that, we should think carefully about what the label means. In its present form, it smacks of old-fashioned moralism, in which having ever once worked as a prostitute makes you "a prostitute" -- somehow a marked person, forever different from other people --as if it was some kind of scarlet letter. We don't do this for other old-fashioned moral categories: we don't have, for example, a Category:Adulterers, and apply this to everyone who's ever had an affair, or a category Category:Fornicators, for everyone who's ever had sex outside of marriage.
If we regard this is a profession-based category, we could legitimately include who have made careers out of prostitution. Apart from that, a "former prostitutes" category might make sense -- but in many cases even that might not be relevant. In Dworkin's case, it seems quite relevant; her experiences appear to have been something she wrote about (see for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/jun/08/society), and they were one of the things that led to her later opposition to prostitution. In other cases, it may not be biographically relevant at all. -- The Anome (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if we had a "former prostitutes" category, I would be comfortable having Dworkin in it, but categorizing her as a prostitute, as if that were part of her identity is problematic, IMO. I'm more comfortable having someone like Valerie Solanas in the prostitutes category, since she had a more ambivalent relationship to prostitution and apparently spent much of her life working as a prostitute. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems right to me. I suggest we create a Category:Former prostitutes, and put edge cases like Dworkin's in it, where it was a biographically relevant experience, but was not a central part of her life, leaving Category:Prostitutes to clear cases of career prostitution (like the indefatigable Mrs. Berkley), and taking everyone else, where it isn't supported by reliable sources as biographically relevant, out completely. -- The Anome (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It gets worse. Digging down further, I notice that, for example, Category:Mistresses of British royalty is was a sub-sub category of this. This is grotesque. Many royal mistresses, of course, were courtesans, but far from all, the two terms are not synonymous, and making the association is quite wrong. Someone, somewhere, seems to have set themselves up as the morality police.-- The Anome (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm looking for Category:Arrested or Admitted Johns (or euphemism therefore). Can't even find an article under Category:Prostitution. Do see this sentence in Prostitution: The clients of prostitutes are also known as johns or tricks in North America and punters in the British Isles. (no wikilinks) What am I missing? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, no Category:Johns. Somehow the asymmetry isn't surprising :P I would favor fixing Category:Prostitutes over adding Category:Johns, however :) Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. I'm also finding it hard to imagine a scenario in which someone might the same criteria we're proposing for Category:Prositutes here, by somehow making a living at being a professional John. Still, the world is wide. and there's always room in the Club of Queer Trades... -- The Anome (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just a friendly reminder that in cases of living or recently deceased people, accusations of illegal work (as prostitution is in some jurisdictions) can be considered libelous. If, in the process of this cleanup, anyone comes across articles with unsourced assertions of prostitution involving living or recently-deceased people, or anything else particularly egregious, please contact the Oversight team so we can handle them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most definitively. Mere accusations without pretty definitive evidence shouldn't be used in either case.
But back to the "Johns" issue, it looks like they are usually called the less demeaning "client" or "customer." See Prostitution law, Human_trafficking#Profile_of_customers (which actually has some ref'd content on "clients"), Feminist views on prostitution or Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal (most famous I could think of off hand; no category noticed for "clients of prostitutes"). Think I'll put a relevant article on my wish list of articles to create (sometimes people see my list and do it!). What should it be called? Prostitution clients or Prostitution customers? Or something else? Decisions decisions. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw this too, triggered by the Valerie Solanas article. So what is the call to action here? Checking BLPs? It'd be nice to have a few clear calls to action so some of us can get started and not stress too much (yet) about drama. :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, a WP:CatScan query for articles lying within the category tree of Category:Prostitutes is probably a good place to start -- if you select the wikitext format for output, then after filtering it down by piping the output through

grep -v "* \[\[:Category" | grep -vE "Fictional|Types_of" | grep -Ei "prostitutes|courtesans"

, it lists about 250 individual articles that will need checking. Note that the category tree data is almost two days out of date: for example, the results currently reflect the "royal mistresses" sub-sub-category nonsense I was talking about earlier, that I believe I have already found and fixed above. For a list of high-priority articles, you can run the previous CatScan query with an intersection with Category:Living people, and this reduces the list to 60 or so.. -- The Anome (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: The following discussion may be relevant: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_7#Category:Vietnamese_prostitutes. The jist of it is I'm proposing to separate the tree by gender - as is it currently (in many cases) assumes female as the default, and there is a separate category for male prostitutes. I think we should get rid of the default/ungendered cat or rename it to Country X Female Prostitutes. This is just a test nomination, depending on the results I will nominate the rest of the tree. Please weigh in.
  • Commenting on the above, WP:DEFINING, is the standard for inclusion in any category per WP:Categorization - I don't know if you need to go much further than that. If someone once worked as a prostitute, it is only DEFINING if reliable sources regularly mention it - so there are some clear members of this cat (like Air_Force_Amy), but also others that are debatable. Dworkin for example probably would fit, as several sources reference that she once did this work, and those experiences obviously impacted her future activism. I don't agree with the self-identification thing though - I'm sure there are many people who don't self-identify as things that reliable sources do identify them as - usually self-identification is only used for gender/sexuality.
  • I don't think we need a separate category for "former" - I haven't seen many "former + jobtitle" cats - all job titles are assumed to be notional, not a description of current day. We don't have "former Senators from Illinois" on Barack Obama's page for example.
  • On the issue of whether courtesans/etc should be sub-catted under here is a good point - that whole tree should probably just be a sibling rather than a sub-cat of prostitutes, as not all courtesans were prostitutes, etc.
  • On the issue of johns, that could fit under Category:Criminals by crime; however solicitation is in most cases, esp for a first offence, a misdemeanor, and I don't think we categorize other misdemeanors, at least not many of them- most seem to be felonies of the more serious type. It may be worth bringing the crime project into this, if there is one. Also I'm not sure if this is a symmetry issue - the classification of prostitute is as a job, without any implication of its legal status, and bios aren't (necessarily) being branded a criminals by being placed within. The symmetry would come into play if we had Category:People convicted for prostitution for example, but I don't think that cat exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One more point - often the term sex worker or escort is used (and we have escort categories, which is a bit of a blurry line also) - but I'm wondering if a better word than 'prostitute' can be found, since it's sometimes a neutral job description, but sometimes a slur. Sex worker is now a higher-level categorization that captures the broader scope of sex work, so may not work here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Carol:

yes, but there's no Category:Female prostitutes by nationality, and that template is just a bulk nomination to use female or women consistently, it has nothing to do specifically with the tree. My proposal - which is a test starting with Vietnamese prostitutes, is to eliminate the non-gendered container categories - it will be much easier if we enact a rename of all the cats vs creating female sub-cats and moving everyone. -obi
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography does exist and probably a good place to discuss this; they may have some policy or at least past discussions.
    Re: "a separate category for "former" - as long as it is made clear in article whether a person is no longer working in the profession
again, I wasn't able to find any other 'former' + job formulations - it's just not done, so I would oppose such a cat unless better reasons can be brought forth to make an exception -obi
I'd like to hear from the crime project. If we start categorizing by misdemeanors that might cause a ton of clutter and also may not be defining - for example in articles I've seen about prostitutes they rarely discuss in detail whether he/she was arrested - what is more defining is that they did this work. Plus given that this is not illegal in all parts of the world it's a strange thing to categorize on - better to discuss such things in the article -obi
  • Prostitute "sometimes a neutral job description, but sometimes a slur." - just make sure the article says that with WP:RS. We can't clean up all reality. And "sex workers" is my preferred because many individuals "in the life" at some point do a variety of "jobs." CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Copied my original comments; best not to interrupt others', FYI) Anyway, at this point working with Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography probably is the best idea. My enthusiasm probably doesn't extend beyond this talk page, but it there's some resolution we can help with after discussing their, report back. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As with the rest of Wikipedia, trolling (posting intentionally provocative or disruptive comments) will not be tolerated.

Reading this made me wonder some things. Firstly: is something more specific meant by 'provocative'? Surely all communication aims to provoke reading, thinking and responses. In the above section, Kaldari aims to provoke co-operative clean-up of a category, for example. Is there an adjective that could be affixed to provocative to clarify it's meaning? Like the attempt to provoke a certain type of thing?

Also, how does one determine whether or not disruption is intentional? Couldn't the very discussion of WikiProject policy like this post be labelled disruptive for not being specifically about Feminism and rather the project's policy regarding communication? Ranze (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is kind of like "what is the definition of porn" - the response being, you know it when you see it. If someone posts a comment that is obviously trolling, community consensus will delete such comment. If only 1 person thinks it's trolling and 20 others think it's fine, then the comment would remain. I don't think defining trolling more specifically here will help - you know it when you see it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Kaldari's Law. No offense intended. Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's probably trolling if it's only agenda is to provoke response. If it's provocative or disruptive comments in order to push one's agenda in an article, it's disruptive editing/edit warring. But there can be a fine line where even the poster doesn't know their intent!! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military

What do you think about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military? It seems every thing should be hidden.--Syngmung (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women photographers for Women's History Month

Some of us have been working on better coverage of women photographers in connection with this year's Women's History Month (i.e. this March). While we now have some 370 biographies, most of which are summarized on the List of women photographers, there still appear to be considerable gaps for several countries. Furthermore, many of the existing biographies need attention, especially for some of the pioneering feminists. Before the end of the month, I will also be making a start on an article devoted to "Women in photography", something of a historical account along the lines of last year's Women in architecture. In addition to actual contributions, any suggestions for women deserving coverage would be warmly welcomed. Their names can be listed here or even as red links on the list providing a reference is given. I would also welcome online sources on the history of women in photography, especially overviews. You can make comments and suggestions here or on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've now made huge progress on the List of women photographers and the article Women in photography is also coming along quite well. As always, you are welcome to contribute to both of these. In particular, the article would benefit from a section on the difficulties women have faced in entering photography as a profession despite recent progress in many (but certainly by no means all] countries.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers et al

Et al being a separate AfD for all the articles about some of the individual women. Definitely WP:systemic bias. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. just FYI, I will probably vote to keep this myself, but that is not a neutral notification, per WP:CANVASS. Please try to be more neutral.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. It's hard to remember when to withhold comment on some noticeboards than others. ;-( CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)

Hi, there is an RM/RfC here that may be of interest to this project. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Rape during the liberation of France

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Section determined to violate WP:CANVAS and user responsible currently blocked. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a page Rape during the liberation of France, which mentions rapes during the war. But some people want to hide historical shame articles. Need some opinions. See Talk:Rape during the liberation of France.--Syngmung (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:CANVAS. Also, what does this have to do with feminism? Inserting links to articles about prostitution in order to promote your own POV that this is the same as rape is NOT the same as feminism. For everyone else: please ignore this person. Xe has been inserting OR (particularly of the SYNTH variety) into numerous articles on rape and other almost entirely unrelated articles (read: adding a paragraph about rape to Invasion of Normandy#Dramatizations), and inserting links to completely unrelated articles about prostitution in South Korea. These edits are at the very best highly offensive and inappropriate. Cheers! Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This reminds me where I saw it. One forgets on some wikiprojects which are more advocacy related to put more neutral announcments.
Anyway, we really do need to fix WP:Canvas so the early sentence on "one or more" wikiprojects isn't so far away from the one about doing all the wikiprojects on an article page. So which volunteer wants to do that?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the OR? Sourced contents. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone, the SPA comments are filled with OR without reliable sources.--Syngmung (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Working with WP:WER

I think Wikiproject Feminism would do well to collaborate with Wikiproject Editor Retention on decreasing the gender gap in Wikipedia editorship. I am currently drafting an essay on women, feminism, and Wikipedia, and was reading the Nine Reasons article, and it occurred to me that creating a collab Wikiproject or Task Force for Female Editor Retention would be a great idea. (Not to toot my own horn or anything...) But just a thought. Feel free to tear me down. Have an awesome day. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 15:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a countering-systemic-bias/gender task force, as well as a mailing list (gender gap) devoted to this topic. I don't know to what extent they work with WP:WER though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article from AfC needs help

I just passed a new article from Articles for Creation into Mainspace; Feminist strippers needs some help, it has very few wikilinks and the categorisation could be improved too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of the discussions about sex workers and BLPs, the addition of that page seems...strange. I am surprised it hasn't been nominated for deletion. It should be redirected, at the very least. The current name for the article is rather poorly-worded. Ongepotchket (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

list of feminist literature as questionably mostly external links

The list of feminist literature was converted a while back from being a list supported by links to articles to a list supported by external links and not much else. It is now harder to determine whether a work or its author is notable and feminist and to find related information, such as background and critique. I don't know if some external links may be facilitating copyright infringement and thus illegal for Wikipedia to list, and being in this list makes it harder to monitor, because editors who know the literature are likelier to be at the articles than to be watching the list. Perhaps it can just be reverted but it may deserve a lot more work, such as by placing the external links in the relevant articles. I raised this issue at the list's talk page, but no one has answered or edited the list relevantly. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was just done in May. I left a message agreeing and saying contact original editor (who's an AnonIP of course and may not check mail). But seems very busy so hopefully isn't being quite as "bold" on other articles... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried contacting the IP editor, but no one answered. I have a complex idea at the list's talk page (not for discussion here as it's better to centralize). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been working on an overhaul of this list at User:Gobonobo/List of feminist literature, basically reformatting and combining the old version with the new one. Gobōnobō + c 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of forming men's rights project

see Wikiproject Men's rights discussion. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canvassing template on this page?

Someone put one on top of this page but we haven't discussed it here. I assume it's up to members of the project whether they will have one. I'm against it myself, unless all wikiprojects have it.

Editors are discussing a relevant proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#proposal_to_require_an_anti-canvassing_message_on_talk_pages. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose the message or template, unless it's on all the pages, as is being discussed at the linked-to proposal (where I also opined). Nick Levinson (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I think it's fair to follow up non-neutral notices to WProjects with a kind request for rephrasing, which should settle the matter. If the issue is continued, deliberate canvassing (and I don't believe anyone has claimed it is), a notice atop the page will not prevent it. We don't have consensus that canvassing on this page has been an continued issue such to require a notice. It reads somewhat like a scarlet letter when applied from an effort external to the Project in isolation. czar · · 23:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given three opposes here and a bad reaction to canvassing template on WP:Canvass Talk page - except under extra ordinary circumstances - I removed it. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 01:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honour crimes in the United Kingdom

It seems there is enough material for an article [1] [2] [3] [4]. These source have statics, opinion polls, notable cases, etc. I'm leaving a note here because women are usually the victim. I'm not going to write the article myself because the Brits are so touchy-feely about their spelling. Currently there are a couple of WP:PERMASTUBs in Category:Honor killing in Europe about the some of the more mediatized cases of honor killings in the UK. The topic of honor killings seems both too broad (whole world) and too narrow (only killings) to properly contain this material as it's covered in reliable sources. (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also this has an interesting analysis/viewpoint. (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this (doi:10.1007/s10691-008-9098-x) academic paper looks very substantive. (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for an extensive catalog of the facts, the report Crimes of the Community: Honour-based violence in the UK ISBN 978-1-903386-64-4 seem the most comprehensive. It's online, but I can't paste the URL in here for some reason (blacklisted??); google the title. (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Honor killing has lots of articles already, the Islamophobes (and perhaps some concerned feminists) being busy populating articles as an excuse to bomb Muslim countries and kill far more women, not to mention it's hard to make feminist revolution in the middle of defending oneself against wars of aggression. Just to give a perspective on the possible POV of the poster. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible good source

I found a source that may be helpful:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaks to project scope

I was bold and made some tweaks to the scope[5]. I think mre can be done to trim its wording down a bit--Cailil talk 15:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Men's Right Movement in Bengal

This article could use an extra set of eyes, and this is the most relevant WikiProject. It seems like a lot of synthesis and original research, but its entry on AFD has received no comments. Claims like this one make me wonder if the article is appropriate for Wikipedia: "Bengal is a hot bed of feminism. Feminism has been fanned in recent years by Marxists."

Thoughts? Andrew327 14:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left opinion in my best inclusionist vein :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Request

I'd like to request an article on Lakireddy Bali Reddy. I think his case is extremely important to feminism, and it's a shocking ommission that Wikipedia doesn't cover it. Ummonk (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the type of case that put him into the news is important to feminism and to other areas of concern, a separate Wikipedia article on him has already been deleted nearly a year ago because of insufficient notability. However, the shortage of notability does not mean a shortage of due weight for an existing article, and an internal search shows that he was mentioned. Please edit any of those articles if that would be useful and/or see if he now qualifies as notable through a new search for sourcing and therefore for attempting a new article. Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion review is the correct venue to discuss deleted articles - as it happens this was already discussed & declined unless "a suitable userspace draft is presented to DRV"--Cailil talk 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diversity Conference

On the 9th and 10th of November 2013 Wikimedia Deutschland, together with Wikimedia UK, Nederlands and the Foundation, is organizing a Conference to discuss Diversity in Wikipedia and its sister projects. You find more information on this meta page: http://meta.wikimedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/starter/google/wikipedia/page/Wikimedia_Diversity_Conference We are looking forward to your input! --MerleWMDE (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The registration process and the Call for Papers is now open. We are looking forward to your registration! You will find the registration form here: wmde.org/diversity_registration --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiska w children.jpg

image:Wiska w children.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed "Sexual allegations vs. Bill Clinton" subsection title

This recently was downgraded from a section of "Public Image" to a few paragraphs at this diff for "Blp" reasons. Feel free to opine if you have some other opinion. Discussion here: Talk:Bill_Clinton#Allegations. User:Carolmooredc 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, at least I linked to the article Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton which I think also might have been removed at some point. User:Carolmooredc 05:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone put it back and it got taken down again. I finally commented at length. User:Carolmooredc 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More serious than it looks

Hi all, just added a suggestion to open tasks to expand several of the articles on major women jockeys. May seem trivial compared to scientists, but it's the 21st century, women are only about 10% of the licensed jockeys, at least in America, are still called "girls" and the current leading star, Rosie Napravnik is still getting yelled at on the track to go home and have babies. Seems to me it's time to bring these articles up to par, several are stubs, most are outdated, and I can add to this list as needed. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great! That's just what we were hoping people would do. We want the list to include a variety of different types of women. We just started with one book, so it is very narrow right now! Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing (old) women

I've recently found out about this project - Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Missing women. Might it be of interest to some of your editors? I've suggested an extension on its talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes! Any list like this, please add to the open tasks page, so that we can assemble these lists in one spot. Wadewitz (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comment: Keeley Hazell biography being linked to pornography portal.

There is currently a discussion, here, on whether Keeley Hazell ought to have a link to the pornography portal. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subpage and joint efforts?

I'm working with a large group of professors specifically to generate energy around adding content to Wikipedia's pages about feminism. Could we set up a subpage here to organize our efforts, which would include listing articles to work on and such? I wanted to connect with other Wikipedians working on such topics and keep our efforts visible. If someone has a better idea for where such a project should be located, please let me know! Wadewitz (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transparency good. Questions, since I'm not even sure where there might be problems here:
  • First, is there a Wikiproject that you worked with that brought you hear?
  • If so, did they have any guidance on working with wikiprojects or creating new project pages?
  • I assume any wikipedian would have to be free to join your page and help decide on article priorities.
  • Is it possible to work with current Pages needing attention or what further info/guidance did you want to add? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 00:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No WikiProject sent us here. We're just interested in this topic area, so this seemed like the perfect WikiProject for us. And, of course we would want other Wikipedians to join us - that would be part of the point! The more of us the better! We want to centralize efforts as much as possible. It would also be great if we could coordinate our list of articles to work on with the current pages needing attention section - how is that generated? Wadewitz (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, searched around and this is the project I was thinking of: Wikipedia:Education program/Ambassadors. They have individuals listed with a lot of experience working with professors and might have better answers to your questions from experience. Otherwise you might suddenly run into unexpected complaints, roadblocks, etc. from individuals (some of them hostile to feminism) on various grounds I won't detail. Better to be prepared. And these individuals have worked a lot with professors before.
I recently had a lot of problems with editors alleging they were academics who were just lording it over others, and not first time that's happened to editors. So, as usual, the bad apples (who might not even be academics!) can make other editors suspicious of the good ones. So it's good to have an idea of how to proceed from those who can best warn you of any words/ideas/actions to be careful of, etc., as well as how best to proceed.) User:Carolmooredc 12:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much, Carol! I'm familiar with the Education Program and have worked with them extensively. We just wanted to make sure that starting a subpage would be ok. I'll just be bold! Wadewitz (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes, outside group planning to edit Wikipedia "en masse"

Storming Wikipedia, a group named FemTechNet is trying to combat the lack of female editors, and expand coverage of Wikipedia's articles on women. That is great! However, they seem to have no idea how Wikipedia operates saying things like, "with the goal being to collaboratively write feminist thinking into the site". Have they contacted anyone from Wikipedia? Does someone here want to contact them? If they just tell a bunch of students to jump into editing Wikipedia to fix it's bias then we could have a lot of headaches on our hands. I think it would be great to get them to participate, but they need an experienced editor to help guide them.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I picked up on the project a couple days ago, and emailed the organizers. It turns out that the Wikipedia portion of the project is being coordinated by User:Wadewitz, who is a very experienced contributor. I've also offered my help in terms of instructional design advice and on-wiki guidance to the people involved in the project, and will also be pointing participating professors towards the relevant WP:USEP regional ambassadors for further guidance and help. I have high hopes for their project, and they definitely won't be coming in to it blind. And really, they can - and should - be writing feminist thought in to Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to represent all major viewpoints roughly proportionally to how they are held in published sources, and as it is, feminism is definitely an underrepresented viewpoint on Wikipedia. Despite the 'storming' language, it's only going to be a couple of hundred students at most, and they're intending to focus on biographies, which are usually not very controversial areas to edit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow that's a relief, good to hear.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...a couple of hundred students at most..." - that is a very scary number. The Indian educational project was also just "a couple of hundred students" and look at the epic train-smash that turned into. The thing that bothers me is that the "Storming Wikipedia" group claim to have engaged with this project, but I don't see any evidence of that - having a "relationship" with only one editor, no matter how competent and enthusiastic, is not a substitute for consulting in depth with the entire Project. At the very least there should be an active section right here on this talk page - or else maybe a Task Force which would be prominently mentioned and linked from the main page. Over at WikiProject Disability we had an "interesting" experience with an edit-a-thon (which incidentally was primarily aimed at Feminism, Disability was just a peripheral topic). I commented about it at a blog about the edit-a-thon - http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/toofew-feminist-people-of-color-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-on-friday-11am-3pm-est/47265 and then later at WP:Education noticeboard/Archive4#A few observations about a recent event. Hope this post is useful to this Project, I'm off to bed... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Indian Education Program wasn't a couple of hundred students, it was over a thousand. There's a pretty severe difference between a thousand students editing a huge variety of topics and a couple of hundred students focusing specifically on biographies of missing women. There were some pretty freaking gigantic structural problems with the IEP that are not present in this project. It's a bit funny that you say there should be a post on this talk page at the very least - if you look just a few threads up you'll see a post from Adrianne Wadewitz about this project, and she's posted a good number of other places as well. She's also successfully taught classes that used Wikipedia-based assignments previously. With the topic area they have identified (missing biographies of prominent women,) I'm honestly not sure why they need to consult in-depth with this wikiproject. (I'm certainly not saying it's a bad idea, it's just not absolutely critical that Wikiproject Feminism is intimately involved in the early planning phases of this project.) The classes involved will certainly need guidance on our notability requirements, the basic mechanics of how to edit, etc - but there's no reason that they can't get that from Adrianne and the existing USEP's infrastructure. The professors and others involved are definitely in a better position to identify major missing biographies than we are as long as they understand our notability criteria. Any project has its risks, but I'm pretty optimistic about this one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A better section heading would definitely be helpful. I'm not quite as sanguine as you seem to be about the project - biographies and particularly BLPs are probably the most difficult type of article to write on WP. The BLP rules are really strict and rather unforgiving so I hope the mentoring and guidance will be adequate. Cleaning up after such projects can be very onerous if the guidance and control isn't fully in place and operating well during the "Storming". Unfortunately I have a very full academic calendar otherwise I might have put my hand up to get involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is indeed a lot of guidance in place and the professors and students are well aware of the rules of editing Wikipedia, but we should remember that everyone was a newbie once and we all slowly learned the rules, so let's be welcoming! We all had to learn the ropes by making mistakes. No one will be a perfect editor from their first edit and we shouldn't have higher expectations for these editors than other people had for us. Wadewitz (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Dodger. I find it a bit worrying that on the FemTechNet page for this project, nowhere do the mention NPOV (in spite of taking the space to mention rules about Notability). Considering the project calls for "Encouraging feminists, academics, and activists to contribute to Wikipedia and help revolutionize its culture" and "storming Wikipedia", and nowhere mentions the need for neutral point of view, this project unfortunately could be read as a call for pro-feminist POV pushing. It may not be intended that way, but considering the sometimes evangelical way college students behave with regard to their political beliefs, this is a very real concern. Hopefully good mentoring and article moderation will head off potential abuses of this sort. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The website is a summary of FemTechNet's goals with regards to Wikipedia rather than a summary of Wikipedia's policies, but, yes, I will make it clear that FemTechNet editors are aware of Wikipedia's policies. Wadewitz (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well.. to say that only experienced users can edit WP seems arrogant. How do you get experience? You edit. And good for them. Hopefully after the project some will stay around and continue to edit. Cap020570 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not claim that only experienced users can edit WP, I stated that groups trying to edit Wikipedia en masse should be guided by an experienced editor.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved this thread to below the original one since I started to give the same advice I'd given above. (Maybe a more explicit title change for this section would help?) It's good to update us on progress and if there is a subpage yett. I know some editor(s) had a fit (i.e., took me to WP:ANI) when I carelessly posted something a bit too POV to the WikiFoundation GenderGap list about an article, so if you all are working through a private email list, that obviously could eventually cause another fire storm on some article or other. User:Carolmooredc 19:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm very cognizant of the private email listserv problem, which is why I wanted to create the Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Open tasks page. I'll have all the classes linked there as well. Wadewitz (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, if you have any questions about this project, ask me! I am the primary Wikipedia consultant for it and am happy to answer any and all questions. Wadewitz (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a member of the organizing committee for this effort, I just want to chime in and point out that everyone is going into this with a sense of collaboration and sincere engagement. The faculty involved are receiving training and a wide array of resources, many of which were developed by Wikipedians, to help with this effort. Each course will have a smaller subset of the "hundreds" of students and there should be plenty of opportunity for discussion, feedback, and mutual learning. DCavendish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. So this is still in the study stage without any actual editing happening? Were you going to start a subpage here? User:Carolmooredc 16:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep! I did! It is Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Open tasks - please feel free to edit it! One of our overarching goals is to help develop WikiProject Feminism itself. This is one way we thought we could contribute. It is obviously a work in progress. Wadewitz (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey no worries. When I did a search for FemTechNet I found no discussion about it on Wikipedia, but now I see you all are already working with some Wikipedians here. Best of luck.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using "Open Tasks" and "Pages Needing Attention"

Open Tasks is the a great place to direct the new editors! (And this talk page, of course.) But let's not forget "Pages Needing Attention" on the main page. That's just a short list since a lot of feminist articles have been distorted by antifeminists of one kind or another. While new editors should start on safer articles like bios, hopefully they'll be willing to transition over at some point. I've been looking at some related articles that have been distorted or trashed that I don't have time/energy on right now, since it would mean a lot of research. Not to mention the fact that in those, and other articles, there often is backlash from organized groups of editors who are much better at playing the on and/or off Wikipedia canvassing/meat puppet games that many of us reject as against policy. I might add one or two of the worst to the list after have time to study them all.
So let's not forget to add articles to "Pages Needing Attention" when we see major problems we don't have the energy to combat at this time or that we'd like to see more input into. And let's not forget to look at the list more often. In fact, maybe "Pages Needing Attention" should be moved up into or at least right under "Ongoing projects"?? User:Carolmooredc 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, just cleaning up my email I realized I had not carefully read or assimilated the email about New School/FemTechNet project. The announcement and links look well within Wiki policy parameters of recruiting more editors interested in a topic and in an area where the Wikimedia Foundation wants more recruits. It's a good model as opposed to some past ones the emphasized pov pushing and off wiki organizing and/or canvassing. User:Carolmooredc 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comment: Gender stereotypes and Femininity

There is currently an RfC discussion open on Femininity, on whether or not the word "stereotype" is NPOV and well-supported by reliable sources when applied to femininity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Courage To Heal Page

I am a new editor and I wanted to get some thoughts/feedback about The Courage To Heal page. The Courage to Heal is a self-help book written for women survivors of childhood sexual abuse and focuses on the healing process and providing resources. I think it definitely needs some help. The page as it stands is full of biased language (The primary thrust of the book is that individuals (mainly women) with a vague set of symptoms have been abused, Despite their complete lack of knowledge about the workings of memories, the scientific approach or information and lack of qualifications, Bass and Davis still define themselves as healers and experts in the area of child sexual abuse, due to leading workshops with victims). The second paragraph in the author’s section is repeated in the criticisms section and it makes more sense for it to be in only the criticisms section to remain neutral. The page as it stands only focuses on the memory and trauma component of the book and it’s relationship to False Memory, rather than providing a neutral and complete overview of the contents of The Courage to Heal. My intention with my edits was not to ignore the False Memory debate but rather to maintain a separation between the debate (which has it’s own page) and the book itself. I also wanted to update the content to convey the changes made in the 20th anniversary edition, but that was also reverted. In looking at the history of the page it is clear that a few editors are dominating the page and not being receptive to concerns put forth by other editors, instead they simply revert the page back every single time. MorningGlory3 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably the best place to start would be on the Talk page. Have a discussion there about changing the page versus just changing it and then going back and forth on edits. Cap020570 (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless it's something currently under contention, I'd say be bold and correct most obvious policy failings. First is the statement supported by the source - or any source - and is it accurate summary of material in article supported by sources? (Often in articles like that there is a lot of WP:OR.) Second is it presented in NPOV way? User:Carolmooredc 12:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aviatrix and other archaic terms

I've been going through a lot of historical biographies lately and am surprised to see how often archaic gendered terms such as poetess, sculptress, and aviatrix crop up in Wikipedia articles. I know some of these come from the older sources such as the 1911 Britannica, but in other cases these are the result of decisions being made by editors. There's currently a discussion on Talk:Amy Johnson over whether she should be referred to as an aviatrix, for instance. I'm wondering how this has been dealt with previously and if there are specific policies surrounding such uses. I've found the essays Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language and Wikipedia:Use modern language and note that WP:MOS says "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". It seems as if despite these fairly clear precepts, the use of these terms persists. Gobōnobō + c 23:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone is interested in this topic, I've started a table documenting use of the marked feminine form in Wikipedia at User:Gobonobo/feminine forms. Feedback and suggestions of terms to include are most welcome. Gobōnobō + c 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of terminology ("survivor", "victim", etc) at Rape culture

There is a discussion about the use of terminology at Rape culture that has, I think, larger implications for how rape is discussed on-wiki. The dispute revolves around these edits. Additional input would be welcome. Posting here because the article is noted on its talk page as being of interest to this WIkiProject. -- UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on pronouns throughout life

Hello everyone - you are all invited to participate in an RfC on whether or not to use the current preferred pronouns of a transgender person throughout that person's life. As editors interested in and knowledgeable about gender issues, I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 11:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joining project

I just did a review of the articles i have created, and only one of them (Fakhra Younus) falls under feminism or womens history (some fall under womens literature, some under lgbt), which i believe is an unconscious, systemic bias on my part. as a self identifying feminist (male), i want to address this in my editing, so i have decided to review articles here to see what i can work on. I am particularly interested in the SF Bay Area, which of course will have a fair number of articles in these areas. I am pretty good at article creation, and will try to identify potential articles (I will check the "articles for creation" pages to see if there is a section for this projects scope).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These 2 articles.

Rape in Saudi Arabia and Rape in Sweden should be rated, both months old articles. Thanks a lot. OccultZone (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Feel free to add WikiProject templates to talk pages and to rate articles yourself using the assessment guidelines. Gobōnobō + c 20:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Rape victims

Discussion about Category:Rape victims at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 25#Category:Rape victims. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women by Ethnicity nominated for deletion.

Category:Women by ethnicity is being considered for deletion. Anybody interested in commenting, can do so at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_4#Category:Women_by_ethnicity. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for help from AfC

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbara Risman and express an opinion about whether the article is suitable and ready for mainspace. Review comments can be posted at the top of the page in the space provided using the template {{afc comment|1=Comment text here ~~~~}} or you may post your comment here, as I will watch this topic. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Risman is notable so I went ahead and moved this to article space. The article could still use some copyediting for tone and additional references that support notability. Gobōnobō + c 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion of possible interest

There is a move discussion at Talk:Australia_national_association_football_team#Suggested_move about renaming the article to include the name men in the title. This may be of interest to some participants because of the gender issues surrounding article names for national sport teams where both a men and women's team exists but only one is gender denoted. --LauraHale (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD Sharon Presley

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharon_Presley. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Libertarian feminist bio kept, FYI. Needs more work since a bunch of new sources were found. So many articles, so little time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub needing help

Role of women in Pakistani media is a horrid article, but we should almost certainly have coverage of the subject, and there may be enough to keep it separate from Women in Pakistan. Either way, I wanted to give it a chance... Steven Walling • talk 08:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should just redirect. The Women in Pakistan is a decent article, and I don't see a need for a breakout of just media here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

missing women philosophers

Hi all - as of late, I've been working a lot on bios of women philosophers. We were missing a lot of people who were not only notable, but foundational in their fields. Alison Jaggar for instance had no Wikipedia article at all until I wrote it this week. I would like to eventually transform my own efforts in to something like Keilana's Wikiproject Women Scientists, except for philosophers. I haven't set up all the infrastructure yet for an actual wikiproject, but for now I've put up a page in my own user space - here - that has a partial list of notable women philosophers who currently don't have articles. If anyone has the time and inclination, some help filling some of them out would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add new names to the list, too! Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is great! I've added it to the open tasks, where I'm trying to assemble all of these lists. Wadewitz (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following links may help: (redacted) (Potential) women philosophers who aren't yet tagged as women philosophers - note this second one will have many false positives; that's because we intersect Category:Philosophers with Category:Women and it turns out that as you dig down, Category:Philosophers contains many people who aren't (like Category:Minimalist_artists) and Category:Women contains many people who aren't women, but it's a useful start and may help in cleaning up the Category:Philosophers tree... You can tweak the depth to get more or less hits, but as you go deeper the false positives increase... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
erp the ghettoized search doesn't work. Need to think about it more carefully. Here's one that sort of works just for American philosophers: link, but the general case is harder to solve.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classification of revenge porn

The revenge porn article has undergone substantial changes, updates and improvements since someone from Project Feminism last gave it a classification. It would be great if someone could give the article another look-through to see whether it warrants an improved classification.

Thanks! Amphiggins (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art and Feminism edit-a-thons

FYI, this is happening around North America - and hopefully beyond - on Feb 1 2014! Get involved! SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz deletion discussion notice

  1. Adrianne Wadewitz
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz

There is an ongoing deletion discussion taking place now about whether or not to have a biographical article about Adrianne Wadewitz on Wikipedia.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

For those newer to Wikipedia, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Notability.

Cirt (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter to the infobox for films

The discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter may be of interest to members of this project.  Sandstein  21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for starting that discussion Sandstein. I think it would also be worth exploring setting up a Bechdel test property for films over at Wikidata. Gobōnobō + c 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Girl power! Press kits? Not long to go now.

Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism mentions press kits being sent out. On the talk page of this imminent event, someone asked how to obtain these press kits.

Does anyone know? Please help preserve the legacy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They mentioned it in their last email to satellite coordinators. I thought the main coordinators might see the talk page sooner since their email response times have been lengthy. czar  02:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi I am one of the organizers and can send you a press kit. Please email me at [email protected] Thanks!OR drohowa (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen marked for deletion 27 January 2014

Apologies for not knowing how to do this correctly. SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen was marked for deletion 27 January 2014. There currently are 3 keep votes of 3 votes total. --Ronja (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean up an article?

Hey, would any of you be interested in helping clean up the article Women's Rights are Human Rights? It originally focused on the Clinton speech, but it seems like the term has been around for quite a while. I added some sourcing but it needs a lot more than what it has now. I'd prefer that someone more familiar with writing feminism type articles edited it and cleaned it rather than myself, as I really don't entirely know what I'm doing. I could bang out a quick, shallow article but it requires the editing prowess of someone who really understands the term (and knows the sources!) beyond the typical quick overview given in the average classroom. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Courage to Heal

I am a rather new editor and have been working on the page for The Courage to Heal a resource for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I am trying to get the page tagged for being non neutral, but since I am the only editor working on the page who feels the page is biased the tag keeps getting taken off. The editors currently working on the page have stated that "Bass and Davis got it wrong" and the page seems to written with this assumption (which is the viewpoint of a few but certainly not by all). As this is a resource for survivors of sexual abuse it feels especially important to have a page that accurately conveys the content of the book. I would so appreciate feedback on how to improve the page (I found a number of sources but they have been edited down to a single sentence by the other editors) as well the support of other feminist editors. Thoughts? Suggestions?MorningGlory3 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comment above is an example of forum shopping: see WP:FORUMSHOP. MorningGlory3 already started a thread about the article at the neutral point of view noticeboard, but it doesn't look as though it's going their way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was unaware of this rule. My intention is to bring attention to the page to see if more experienced editors would be interested in working on it. MorningGlory3 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP Countering Systemic Bias in the Signpost

Comment below is reposted. Djembayz (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles related to dowry in India

The following articles seem to be subject to frequent POV-pushing and addition of uncited original research:

Unfortunately, it seems that very few people are watching these pages, so please add them to your watchlist if you would like to help keep an eye on them. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/starter/google/wikipedia/page/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

More categories up for deletion/discussion

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism#Article alerts. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General discussion?

I confess I get confused on category deletions like these sometimes and who has time to look at them all. Is there some general pattern or dubious principle we should be aware of to motivate us to look further? Thanks. CM-DC surprisedtalk 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:EGRS contains the guidance around gendered categories. There are several things to be aware of (1) Normally, we don't do gender + whatever intersections - you have to establish that the gender + {topic} is notable and discussed in multiple RS (2) In the particular Canadian case, there aren't any other instances of {Women} from {Province}/{City}/{State} - we do have intersections around {gender} + {certain jobs}, but not classifying people by {Gender} + {location}, with the exception of country-level boundaries. Another general rule is to not create last-rung categories - where you are splitting the last level of a category by gender - the reason is that this tends to ghettoize women, and those of you who followed the women novelists mess remember what a brouhaha that caused. I've done a lot of work in de-ghettoizing categories (I did Category:Female duellists yesterday), and developed an algorithm here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#Deghettoization_algorithm that those interested in deghettoizing can use, but in some cases it's frankly better to delete the categories if they are more likely than not to lead to ghettoization (or if they violate WP:EGRS). Properly dealing with non-diffusing categories, which most gender-based (and ethnic/religious/sexuality) categories need to be is actually quite complex, as you can tell by reading the algorithm. Therefore, consensus at CFD seems to set a relatively high bar for ethnic/sexuality/gender/religion-based categories. I'm really hoping to get more support around dynamic category intersection, which would allow us to do {gender} + {arbitrary topic} without the need to actually categorize thousands of articles as such, but for now not many people have expressed interest in helping - drop a note on my talk page if you'd like to assist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that applies to any category, so I'm not sure why it would be an argument to keep this particular one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statistics about deletion of women biography categories

During the two weeks period starting October 30, 2013 there have been 24 women-biographyCategories nominated for "discussion" compared to only 35 non-gendered CfDs. Since there are far less women-related categories to start with, this should be cause for alarm. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ran the statistics on this, and got a different result. I looked at all CFDs since October 24, and then filtered to just categories that were meant to contain people; then tagged each category with a "gender". I found 22 "female" categories, "23 "Male" categories, and 62 "neutral" categories that were nominated for discussion (this should really be 82, since there was a group nom of Honorable degree recipients). So, I'm not sure what exactly is the cause for alarm. A large number of the "women" cats nominated were from a tree that you yourself very recently started in Canada, which is basically a duplicate of Category:Women in Canada by province or territory‎. It's hard to know for sure, but there are likely more "Women/female" specific categories than male/men specific ones overall in the tree - in either case, there are something like 6-8,000 categories for each.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's possible that you don't see the problem with 22 women-related categories being discussed for deletion in the last couple of weeks because you're specifically the one who nominated a dozen of them to be deleted. Your chart doesn't address that you've made the lion's share of nominations involving women here as well as being the editor responsible for nominating categories about feminists and rape victims for deletion. Maybe you find this too small a point to mention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to say I nominated several of them, and I've nominated many other categories for discussion over the years. I do a lot of maintenance on categories, and sometimes, deleting or merging categories is the best way to keep the system working. I've also, in the past few weeks, populated and deghettoized Category:Female explorers, Category:Female travelers, Category:Women_travel_writers and Category:Female_duellists as well as a few others, in some cases adding dozens of more bios to these categories. I personally think we shouldn't genderize everything, it makes categorization more difficult and is more likely to lead to ghettoization - this is my experience from looking at hundreds of gendered categories over the past 6 months - the vast majority of them just end up segregating women, which caused a massive hoopla when it happened with women novelists. I'm currently working on a proposal to get rid of the down-to-the-lowest-level genderization of acting categories that is now going on, which I find excessive (e.g. Category:American telenovela actresses, Category:Actresses from Phoenix, Arizona, Category:Male_actors_from_Kansas_City,_Missouri), etc - we got rid of the "women writers by state" categories, and I think we don't need this level of split for actresses and male actors either. I'd really prefer we just used simple category intersections instead. You make it seem like me nominating Category:Murdered feminists is something bad (you'll notice it is trending towards a strong delete, so I'm not the only one who thinks murder victim + ideology is a bad mix), but it's not - it's simply an intersection we shouldn't start categorizing by; the nomination of Category:Radical lesbian feminists is also b/c it's a violation of WP:EGRS, which says you should not have last-run categories, which this one is. (the last rung rule is why we don't, and shouldn't, have categories like Category:Lesbian voice actors from New York. The reason I've nominated the Category:Rape victims category is because I don't think every woman who has been raped needs to have this tag at the bottom of her page - I think it's a BLP nightmare personally - there's a huge difference from coming out publicly in one interview and saying you've been raped, and having "rape victim" alongside "author" and "born 1945" and "from Seattle, WA" - as if being raped DEFINES you - per IAR, for this particular category, I think the potential costs outweigh the benefits - if we add it to a victim and they see it there, they may be insulted; if we take it off a particular victim's category, they may think wikipedia is saying "You aren't really a rape victim" - it's a no-win scenario. In any case, if you have thoughts on the categories, please comment at CFD, we could always use more editors there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Simple category intersections don't include significant entries flagged by editors. 2. You removed the hatting on this chart and it seems disruptive and distracting. It gives the impression that you're trying to drown out discussion by hosing raw data at people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not the one who started this discussion, I simply added data to it that contradicts the initial assertion of "this should be a cause for alarm". If we're going to have a discussion of what gets nominated at CFD, let's start with the raw data. Stop making bogus accusations of "drowning out discussion". Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean about category intersection missing "significant" entries. Category intersection will always be more inclusive than any specific intersection tags that are placed. If there's an error, it can be easily corrected.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Elaqueate Now that the noise here has died down, I wonder if you could explain in simple words what hatting means. I have been around Wikipedia for over six years and I am still struggling with the jargon. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Hatting" usually refers to adding hatnote templates atop articles, though I don't know how it was used above. Could have meant "heading". czar  16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I think I was using imprecise jargon myself. I saw someone write about "hatting" when they add some header and footer text to a discussion or table to collapse it. Help:Collapsing I think this table including all of article recommendations could be collapsed in some way, whether it's called hatting or collapsing or whatever. The point this table supports could have been made in a sentence, or a link to a table, or a collapsed table, instead of a wall of listings. I tried to collapse it earlier but was reverted. If someone else responds with another table, this discussion would be even more difficult to follow for a new reader. How do people feel about collapsing the 100-line table below so that it's one line that can be expanded? __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hatting is usually used to refer to use of {{Hat}} tags to shut down or close off one aspect of discussion, but can also be used for collapsing (instead of Hatting), although it's slightly imprecise. I don't Think We need to collapse that section just yet, it can remain until we get to the bottom of the issue Ottawa brought here. Feel free to add to the table columns or rows as needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously you want your table to dominate the talk page, but maybe people have a different opinion. I believe that if someone responded to one of your questions with a 100 line table, you would have collapsed it in a heartbeat. Please collapse it if requested. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think if we continue this, we will spend more time talking about collapsing the table than the contents of the table or the issue at hand. In general, it is fine to collapse your own comments, or to hat comments that are off-topic, but it is not generally considered permissible to collapse other's comments just because you believe they are too long, or at least you are welcome to try but should drop the stick if reverted. I suggest you drop the issue and engage in the actual discussion which Ottawa opened.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I collapsed your list in the interest of clarity, you reverted. I left it alone until I was pinged here. If you think you're not deliberately obstructing discussion, fine, but a table of raw data wouldn't universally be considered "a comment". It just seems a cheap way to hide the fact that women's categories put up for discussion spiked in the first half of November by adding undated raw listings from October. But I'm not going to collapse your list, if you think it proves something as it is. But the fact that a second section had to be started might tell you something about how helpful it's been. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obi's findings including the week previous to discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This table lists the 3 previous weeks of categories nominated for discussion that were meant to contain biographies. If the category in question was for an individual man or woman, or designed to contain only men or women, it was tagged with 'M' or 'F' - otherwise it was tagged with 'N'. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the table be collapsed?
# Gender? Category Result
1 F Category:Rebbie Jackson deleted
2 F Category:Women by ethnicity under discussion
3 F Category:Joan Baez delete
4 F Category:First Nations women under discussion to merge
5 F Category:Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic winners speedy rename
6 F Category:Women Turing Award laureates delete
7 F Category:American women computer scientists delete and merge
8 F Category:Fanny Crosby delete
9 F Category:Canadian women computer scientists merge
10 F Category:Wikipedia categories named after women delete
11 F Category:Women who committed suicide trending towards merge with Female suicides
12 F Category:Radical lesbian feminists under disc
13 F Category:Forbes most powerful women under disc
14 F Category:Women from Quebec under disc
15 F Category:Women by province or territory in Canada under disc
16 F Category:Women from British Columbia under disc
17 F Category:Women from Brampton under disc
18 F Category:Women from Ontario under disc
19 F Category:Women from Ottawa under disc
20 F Category:Women from Karachi under disc
21 F Category:Nadia Ali under disc
22 F Category:Janelle Monáe under disc
23 M Category:Swami Vivekananda rename
24 M Category:Esham under discussion
25 M Category:Joss Whedon delete
26 M Category:Paul Auster delete
27 M Category:Robert J. Shiller under disc
28 M Category:Slim Burna delete
29 M Category:Dale Carnegie delete
30 M Category:Toby Driver delete
31 M Category:Jeremy McKinnon delete
32 M Category:Austin Mahone delete
33 M Category:Men in politics delete
34 M Category:American men's basketball players no consensus
35 M Category:NBA Finals MVP Award winners deleted
36 M Category:NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award winners deleted
37 M Category:NBA Slam Dunk Contest champions deleted
38 M Category:American League Most Valuable Player Award winners kept
39 M Category:National League Most Valuable Player Award winners kept
40 M Category:Bruce Johnston under disc
41 M Category:Works about Michael Moore some merged
42 M Category:Craig Vetter under disc
43 M Category:Royal lovers under disc
44 M Category:Bruce Johnston delete
45 M Category:Web series male actors merge
46 N Category:People from Greater Sacramento renamed
47 N Category:People from Prosperity, South Carolina merge
48 N Category:Oil painters under discussion
49 N Category:Shubdubs delete
50 N Category:National Basketball Association players from Latin America merge
51 N Category:Tokusatsu actors delete
52 N Category:Wrestling promoters under discussion
53 N Category:Chefs of Washington, D.C. under disc
54 N Category:Chefs of New York under disc
55 N Category:English Anglican priests under disc
56 N Category:New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees delete
57 N Category:Computer scientists from Melbourne merge
58 N Category:Computer scientists by IFIP Working Group delete
59 N Category:Members of IFIP Technical Committee 1‎ delete
60 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.3‎‎ delete
61 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.6‎‎ delete
62 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.7‎‎ delete
63 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.8‎‎ delete
64 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.1‎‎ delete
65 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.2‎‎ delete
66 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.3‎‎ delete
67 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.8‎‎ delete
68 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.11‎‎ delete
69 N Category:Bedroom musicians delete
70 N Category:Gibraltarian football biography stubs delete
71 N Category:National Basketball Association scoring champions delete
72 N Category:Artists who exhibited in Metavisual Tachiste Abstract delete
73 N Category:Canadian Newsmakers of the Year delete
74 N Category:Honorary degree recipients from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne delete
75 N Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Lausanne delete
76 N Category:Honorary degree recipients by universities in Switzerland delete
77 N Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst delete
78 N Category:Former honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst delete
79 N Category:Honorary degree recipients by universities delete
80 N Category:MusiCares Person of the Year delete
81 N Category:Tarling deleted
82 N Category:Grand Am drivers renamed
83 N Category:Public philosophers renamed
84 N Category:Bengali Hindus under disc
85 N Category:Somalian emigrants keep
86 N Category:Meghalaya politician stubs withdrawn
87 N Category:Rape victims under disc
88 N Category:Wrestling promoters under disc
89 N Category:British sheriffs under disc
90 N Category:Recipients of the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom Award under disc
91 N Category:IPI World Press Freedom Heroes under disc
92 N Category:Saints of Ottoman under disc
93 N Category:People on Forbes lists under disc
94 N Category:Murdered feminists under disc
95 N Category:Presidents of the Romanian Union of Plastic Artists under disc
96 N Category:Pseudonymous musicians under disc
97 N Category:Pseudonymous rappers under disc
98 N Category:Egyptian American directors under disc
99 N Category:Voice actors who committed suicide under disc
100 N Category:Orkanger IF managers under disc
101 N Category:BLP articles lacking sources from 2013 speedy delete
102 N Category:Military careers under disc
103 N Category:Honorary Fellows of universities and colleges under disc (at least 20 categories have been nominated here)
104 N Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe television under disc
105 N Category:Master of Sports of the USSR under disc
106 N Category:People from Dzershinsk, Russia under disc
107 N Category:Honoured Masters of Sports of the USSR under disc
Questions regarding the CfD table above
@Obiwankenobi: Nice table. Did you construct it yourself? How difficult would it be to add the nominators as a column? XOttawahitech (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd just have to look up each nominator and add it. Yes I built it in excel then converted to wiki format. I think most of the eponymous cats were nominated by Jerry Pepsi.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Obiwankenobi: You said earlier that you "ran the statistics on this" which statistics did you refer to? (and did you notify user:Jerry Pepsi that he is being discussed here?) XOttawahitech (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just meant I calculated the number of person-holding cats nominated and whether they were gendered or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opinion sought

Should all women-related categories be part of this wikiproject?


  • Many women’s categories are being nominated for "discussion"
  • Some of these nominations are showing up in this wikiproject’s alert section
    • Categories that belong to this wikiproject show up in the alerts section when they are nominated
    • Women’s categories that do not belong to this wikiproject will not show up when they are nominated for "discussion"

So, do all women-related categories belong to this wikiproject? If not is there another project that encompasses all of them? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are at least 5400 categories with "women" in the title and over 1200 with "female" in the title [6] - from women's sports, to women writers, to women activists, to just plain biography categories for women (e.g. American women). I really don't think all of these should be added to the feminism project, as most of these categories have little to do with feminism. I'd suggest women's sports categories should go to the relevant sports projects, women activists/etc categories should go to feminism, women's literature should go to literature projects and perhaps women's history projects, and individual bios of women should go to biography project, any relevant country/field projects, and only feminism if the woman in question is a figure of note for feminism. One specific example is Category:Princesses - I don't think this isn't that closely related to feminism, I think adding it to the royalty project is largely sufficient, we have a large tree of royalty-related categories and assigning to that project is sufficient. I would make the same arguments for men's categories; I think it would be silly to add "Kings" to Wikiproject:Men's rights for the same reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I created Category:Category-Class Feminism articles and Category:Category-Class Women's History articles and updated the templates accordingly; once the jobs refresh the templates those categories should be populated with all of the categories tagged across these projects, but we may have to wait a few days or even weeks for that to happen (sigh).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Women categories nominated

Not sure if this is a of interest here? There is a whole new batch of women's categories nominated for "discussion", they should show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Article alerts soon. By the way, women's categories are non-diffusing, which means that they are in additi0n to the other categories, not a replacement. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. File:Skepchickal.jpg
  2. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal

I've nominated this photograph by Ragesoss, for Featured Picture consideration.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal.

Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Women's day 8th March event

Anyone want to join us in London on the 8th March to mark International women's day by creating/improving articles on Women archaeologists?

The Petrie Museum has invited WMUK in to train some of their people on the 8th March, and they've just told me they have some spare places for any of you who can get to London. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sonia Pressman Fuentes

She was apparently one of the founders of NOW. However, the article has zero independent sources. It is currently sourced only to her website and a very brief "Letter to the Editor" which she wrote to a magazine in Florida. Talk:Sonia Pressman Fuentes contains an edit request to add a much longer biography copied from her website with OTRS permission which I declined as it had zero independent sources and a very unencyclopedic, promotional tone. However, if references can be found, the information could be used to expand the article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential new article

Hi all! I'm writing to present the idea of creating a new article about the gender inequalities in positions of power and how women are so vastly underrepresented in positions of power in many areas including government, industry, international organizations, science, academia, even sports and popular culture. I'm writing on this project page to hopefully get some feedback on people's opinions on this potential article. I would be doing so as a part of a class assignment. Check out my user page for more information. Thank you so much!!

Cnicholson12 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cnicholson12: Rather than creating a new article on this topic (which is extremely broad), you should add relevant information to the articles that already cover these issues—specifically Sexism and Women in government. Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential Additions to Transnational Feminism Article

I am looking to make substantial editions to content and organization of the Transnational Feminism article. I am doing this as a project for my Gender and Economic Development class at the University of Utah. My plan is to first discuss areas such as the history of the topic, theories such as feminist theory, and transnational theory. Secondly, I will look to cover areas that transnational feminist are concerned with such as imperialism, colonialism, nationalism and how these interact with gender, race, etc. Lastly, I will try to give transnational feminism an everyday context by discussing activism and movements around labor rights, violence against women, and social empowerment. Any feedback, suggestions, etc., please let me know. Dougsimpsonwiki (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article = Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Cirt (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review

  1. Adrianne Wadewitz
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1

I've nominated the article Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review.

Discussion is at the peer review subpage, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help expanding an article?

Hey, need some help on the article about Belle Knox, the Duke student that was outed as being a porn star. It's up for AfD and I'm tentative about the notability since it could be WP:ONEEVENT, but the coverage is fairly wide. I've done some cleaning but I think that it'd really benefit from someone from here coming on to do some additional editing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender neutral categories

I think Category:Fictional swordsmen should be called Category:Fictional sword fighters and Category:Fictional giants should be split into giants and giantesses. I think both of these would be valid changes meeting with fictional police officers and fictional fire fighters. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second this. Where would we go to start a consensus to changing this? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category talk:Violence against women by country

I have just added this project's banner to more than a dozen categories in the Category talk:Violence against women by country family. Before I continue tagging more, I am just wondering if anyone here cares? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think banners help with WikiProject visibility. It's not done as much now though as in the past. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 12:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In other words, if you don't want to see content or articles listed here removed you might work on them to correct issues (which I assume are too many direct quotes not in quotation; or even too many in quotation.) A real long list that does have a few things feminists might be interested in. Check it out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversy. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:SCUM Manifesto/Vote for categorizing this article under "Violence against men"

Requesting other perspectives in this debate over whether the SCUM Manifesto should be added to the category Violence against men.

Join the debate here --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Radical Feminism"

Join the debate here --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TERF is a slur (don't use as such on talk page)

After pursuing above, I noticed the phrase TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) being used in a highly negative fashion. I created this Talk:Radical_feminism#TERF is a slur (don't use as such on talk page) section if any one wants to comment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Merging" (aka Deleting) categories

There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz deletion discussion notice

  1. Adrianne Wadewitz
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz

There is an ongoing deletion discussion taking place now about whether or not to have a biographical article about Adrianne Wadewitz on Wikipedia.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

For those newer to Wikipedia, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Notability.

Cirt (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, closed as keep. Perhaps this would not have been so annoying if there weren't articles on male Wikipedians of less notability (at least per their current articles) ala Ting Chen, Martin Haase, Samuel Jacob Klein, Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian). Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most interesting comment, thank you! I'll quote from Adrianne Wadewitz as quoted in Los Angeles Times, she said: "Wikipedia needs to recruit women, yes, but, more importantly, it needs to recruit feminists," she wrote on her blog last year. "And feminists can be of any gender."Cirt (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Carolmooredc: I have long suspected that which articles are deleted and which are kept is due to a complicated formula consisting of the notability of the subject, the popularity of the editor who created the article on Wikpedia and the editor who nominated the article for deletion, the admins who happen to be around (in the case of wp:CSDs and wp:PRODs), the editors who happen to participate in the deletion discussion, and more. I just started an article about Virginia Williamson founder of Byte Magazine and with my track record I expect it to be nominated any moment now :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While generally you may be correct, it does help to have four or five more solid references. A lot of articles have none but no one notices or bothers to do anything about it. Of course, now that you've drawn attention to it... Ooops... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carolmooredc: Actually the same editor who has nominated Virginia Williamson for deletion has also nominated several other articles that I created recently for deletion. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this would be an interesting research project - to look at the likelihood of a given bio being nominated for deletion, and that deletion being sustained, compared to the gender or ethnicity of the person in question. You could build a rather large database, say of new bios created in the last 5 years, compare to the number of bios nominated for deletion, and then see if there is a difference in the frequency of nomination, or in the successful deletion, of bios of women or people of color. My guess would be that in absolute terms more male bios are deleted, but since fewer female bios are created, perhaps a higher percentage of female bios get nominated? I suppose this might be the sort of research Wadewitz would have promoted - if it hasn't already been done. I also note, for the record, that some people who knew Wadewitz very well nonetheless voted to delete: [7]. The wp bio of Sarah Stierch was also deleted by snow, and I believe she even agreed to it - we shouldn't equate the existence or non-existence of a biography with importance or impact in the world; indeed some of the people who have had the largest impact in the world are people who reliable sources never write about, who just do good things in the world. I think in some cases, a WP bio can be sadly more of a curse than a benefit...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obiwankenobi: I think you posted this before or someone else did a similar posting. Someone's just got to do the work. But as long as people can keep adding and re-adding poorly referenced negative material, even after it's rejected at WP:BLPN and even removed by admins, Wikipedia has a problem. Of course, I've also seen that it's easier to get rid of nonsense with bios of individuals who have more fans on Wikipedia than those who have less. I also was glad to see my Bio removed, though in both my and Sarah's cases we had a lot more WP:RS than many many bios of males that continue to exist. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
to me that's a good reason to be more deletionist esp with regard to bios, esp of living people. We already have like 600k living people bios, and I'm sure a great many of those have very few watchers. I think the wiki would be improved if we had less bios esp given # of editors are dropping - it's one of the reasons I don't always agree with the 'add lots of bios of women to Wikipedia' edit-a-thons - what happens to those bios after the spotlight goes away? I think such resources might be better spent expanding/strengthening bios we have rather than adding new ones of marginally notable people. As for the men who have fewer references, send them to AFD. We should just be more brutal and clear out bios that are marginal - if we can't commit to maintaining a neutral bio we shouldn't have it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. The "marginally notable" women are typically more difficult to source because of the bias toward documenting the achievements of men. If we buckle down and write lots of biographies of women, then it becomes easier in the future to write more biographies of women because of the networks formed by wikilinks. From experience I can tell you it is difficult to write about a notable woman if a majority of the people she dealt with in her career are redlinked names. If we make those redlinks into bluelinks then we are bootstrapping the project upward. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we already *have* lots of biographies of women - at least several hundred thousand, if not more. I'm not saying we need fewer bios of women, I'm saying we should have fewer bios, period, and when we group editors together, it might be a more productive use of their time to expand existing articles - many of which are in a pitiful state - than adding new ones. During "category gate" I had the chance to look at a great number of articles on novelists, many of them women. Most were rather terrible - either poorly written, written as advertisements, or just bad.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I was saying in cases like Sarah and myself where we are happy to see our articles deleted because they have or may draw unwanted attention from other editors and be trashed, then deletion is fine. Also other bios which have just become attack pages and no one is willing to put in neutral or positive info. But I'm an inclusionist myself. Articles where the few refs show someone is notable, but editors just haven't beefed them up, should be tagged for improvement. Similarly, ones that Binksternet described where media, academic, etc. bias may not make clear their true notability, though future RS may well do so, should be kept. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bikini image for Wikipedia photo of the day.

Just letting ya'll know about this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Discussion_regarding_possible_picture_of_the_day:_Michele_Merkin. SarahStierch (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dowry law in India

Can someone please help keep an eye on Dowry law in India? This article is under constant attack from Indian Men's Rights activists who keep adding POV commentary. Kaldari (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. User:Kaldari, Let me know if you want me to protect? -- SarahStierch (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, I decided to protect it after checking out the history. SarahStierch (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How women related categories get deleted against consensus

Here is one example: Category:Female accountants. Check out the talk page and you will see it has already survived two deletion nominations one in July 2011 and the second in February 2014. It is now been nominated for renaming, but is it really?

If you delve into the history you will see that the same editor who nominated it for deletion in February 2014 is the same one who is now asking for it to be renamed. Problem is the way the current discussion is (allowed to be) going is towards deletion not renaming. Just thought some here may be intrested? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly it should be renamed to "women" as we don't know the sex of the individuals, just their gender. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks simply like "blowback" from the female authors category controversy that blew up so spectacularly in the media some time ago. That experience has made many editors actually afraid of "female/women anything" categories. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ottawa, how exactly/specifically/precisely, is this discussion an example of "against consensus", or indeed any discussion at CFD?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandra Bem has died

Feminist psychologist Sandra Bem took her own life on May 20 (Source). Post is half just FYI, but might be a good opportunity to improve her wiki page. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michelle Ryan (academic)

Can somebody please fill in this redirect (to Glass cliff) as a stub? Bearian (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Michelle K. Ryan. gobonobo + c 14:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Patriarchal Code

I'm writing an article titled 'The Patriarchal Code'. I've been told several times that I'm not 'neutral' enough. I think this is because the research took over 20 years to collect 20,000 names and symbols embedding male bias and I'm a little overwhelmed by having to present the concept of a patriarchal code in an article.

The topic is multidisciplinary. It touches on feminism a little but it is really about making true-to-reality symbols and names to develop rationality, knowledge and moral civilization.

In a new message I was told I was presenting an argument. I don't think I know how to state the basic premise without making as argument. I need help here.Louise Goueffic (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Louise Goueffic. From your comment it seems you've conducted research over 20 years on this issue and are trying to present it on wikipedia - am I understanding you correctly?--Cailil talk 12:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Yes,Reply[reply]
I see this has already been discussed here too. Can you verify that the details given here are indeed true Louise--Cailil talk 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would really like help with my article. I'm being told it is much more of an essay, not an article. I'm not able to satisfy WP with an "encyclopedic" presentation of my material. My article is on the language that addresses specifically our species. The largest part violates logic, influencing how we think and does not respect evidence in reality. Can someone suggest an similar article I can examine to compare between 'essay' (mine) and an article (someone else)Louise Goueffic (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I see it the basic problem is that in your draft you are presenting and arguing the theory itself, thus the draft falls foul of the prohibition against original research. You have already published a book about this theory, the article should be about the book as a book, two steps removed from the "raw" theory itself. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, it's content should be based mainly on secondary sources. Use rewiews, criticism and discussion of the book and the theory presented therein, by other people, as the main sources of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I be blunt, Louise Goueffic? You are trying ether to create notability for your life's work, or to use Wikipedia to present it. Nether is acceptable. Wikipedia is not a forum, a blog, a personal website, nor any other medium for presenting what has doubtless taken you much skill and many years to put together. Wikipedia requires that any article is covered in a significant manner, in whole or in part in WP:RS, and Wikipedia records that material. Your continuing to plough this lone furrow is a display of WP:COI that will never, not ever, achieve an article on this topic. If your work were notable then someone would have created an article on it.
You are thus experiencing what every editor experiences when they attempt to create an article about their own expertise. You are finding, to substantial disappointment, that your work is not notable in a Wikipedia sense, whatever its status in Academe. Please read WP:ACADEME and understand why this is.
I have tried to work out diplomatic ways of phrasing this. I have noted elsewhere that I am on the tetchy side today, so forgive me if this comes over as tetchy. What I want to achieve is helping you understand that you are not going to get anywhere with this lengthy treatise, and that you will only become more and more frustrated. I prefer to have one single major disappointment than to receive many smaller ones that eventually exceed that one biggy.
If you are to stand a chance, rip the article to shreds and submit a bare bones article with significant coverage in WP:RS. Lose almost everything in it and take the risk that someone else, anyone else, will enhance it after acceptance (which is still in doubt). Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanted to say that Fiddle Faddle is right. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original work. If your research draws significant attention and coverage from being published elsewhere, they we might be able to have an article on it someday. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is exactly why I suggested in my previous post that an article about the book might be viable, but as it stands the current draft will never fly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. An article about the book might, and I emphasise 'might' just work This depends solely on significant coverage of the book in WP:RS showing what others say about it. To be entirely clear, even if the book is notable it is by no means certain that the topic the book covers is notable. This is a paradox, but true nonetheless. It also does not follow that the author of the book is notable, a further paradox. Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fear the editor is not taking advice, and remains in charge of the same lone plough on the same lone furrow. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've visited several Wiki sites in the last few days to see what I was doing wrong. I learned something from each. But the sites I visited were 'notable' for their -almost obvious- factual errors. Yet they are up on Wikipedia. So I'm very confused about the accusation that I'm on a "lone plough". I make damn sure that what I write in my article are facts, facts that can be checked in history books, dictionaries, etymological dictionaries, linguistic texts, or some other appropriate medium.

Language cannot be discussed in isolation of history. Symbols and names are made as needed by a group, an individual, or ruling power, etc. Patriarchy's rule lasted over 11,000 years, it made names to guarantee its rule, affecting the whole species. How does this relate to being on a "lone plough"?

Moreover, making names has rules and regulations just like any other technology, making cars, cakes or buildings. Because rules and regulations have to be followed to make names and symbols, when they do not follow the rules the name is flawed. The species cannot make a good or better system built on flawed language, a divisive language that built a bad system, dysfunctional at core. How does this relate to being on a "lone plough?" Anyone submitting an article on language that does not take into account the history, the technology of making names and language, meaning, message, etc. should not write on a name/s -in isolation- of their connection to other names. He or she can not understand the "guts" of the whole process.

I thought Wiki's aim was to pass knowledge to people, as an online encyclopedia. Am I misinterpreting what an encyclopedia is? What in my article is not knowledge? I accept the criticism that it sounds like an essay, and I'm trying hard to correct this.

My work is not feminist, nor ideological. It defends rationality, truths stated in language, evidence seen in reality and partnership among all speech-users. But it does raise the scary spectre that it is not what we, as a species, were made to believe. Is this the "lone plough" you accuse me of being on? I would like to know. Because I'm getting more confused, not de-confused. Louise GouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying hard to wipe out all of what you call 'my self-interest' in my article. I'm trying to present the material in a way that readers see that flawed language does no good for anyone, including themselves. I am not a self-promoter. I do not have a big ego. I have no wish to promote myself. I do want people to know what flawed language is and what it does to the species and to them individually; it benefits all to know that the part in language bout ourselves has been poisoned. If this is "self-promotion" or COI then I have a badly flawed concept of it. I go over and over my article trying to see where I actually promote myself, my work or my books in it. I would like to have these pointed out to me Louise Goueffic Louise Goueffic (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regrettably Louise it seems you have a flawed understanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest here on wikipedia. Moreover in wikipedia terms this is original research. Let's tackle part one first. You have been researching this hypothesis in real life for years. You've come here to add an article about your ideas or containing the central argument of your work. Are there books about your hypothesis by other people? Has it become a widely accepted topic? From what I can see the answer to both questions is no, at least this time. In this case the topic is not notable for inclusion on wikipedia yet. Furthermore you should not be writing about this yourself - that is a conflict of interest.

Now, on the matter of original research, the article you wish to add has had a lot of feedback on it from multiple people saying that it's an essay (please see this policy for more information). Wikipedia does not publish arguments, essays or original research. Wikipedia records what peer reviewed third part works say about a topic. Even then wikipedia does not include everything it has a series of tests for weight and notability, these rules define what is appropriate to include in an article and what topics are acceptable as articles respectively. The type of writing in your draft article is not suitable for an encyclopedic entry on a topic it is an argument for an idea drawing from the work of diverse sources rather than an overview of a body of research about that idea--Cailil talk 11:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

those interested in discussing this draft article's continued development should be aware of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Patriarchal Code. I have taken the out of process bold decision that wider community eyes should discuss and reach consensus on the article. I have given a full rational there, and invite interested editors to give considered opinions which may not match my own as part of the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 15:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaflet For Wikiproject Feminism At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like an awesome idea. I'll be at Wikimania and can distribute the leaflets. Anybody want to come up with a logo design? Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The radical feminism article relies far to heavily on one source Suggestion

Any interest in collaborating to remedy this? I notice the feminists in the See Also section are mostly radical or second-wave feminist authors; Dworkin, bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Mary Daly. Is there any reason we can't improve and expand the article using their works as references, instead of relying mainly on the one source (Willis) for the entirety of the article? Ongepotchket (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ongepotchket, if they are the source of the thought, they would be a primary source if cited directly. Instead it makes more sense to use secondary sources with commentary from a critical distance, which should be plentiful for this topic. czar  14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Secondary sources should be plentiful, and are plentiful, which is why I am confused about one source being used for the majority of the article. If we expand the references a bit I think that would help to make the article more accurate. Ongepotchket (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WaPo: Female-named Hurricanes

I´m not sure this is of any use for any feminism-related articles, but it was interesting, and I wanted to spread it. [8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking it might belong in the "naming" of hurricanes, noting in US any way change from all female to male and female names AND the difference. But don't have time for debating it right now myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today's DYK

Just noticed this repugnant DYK that was just posted a half-hour ago:

  • "...that an American serial killer said that he killed women before having sex with them because "I like peace and quiet"?"

How do misogynistic statements like this make it through four levels of approval in the DYK process and appear on the Main Page? DYKs are intended to draw in potential new readers and editors to Wikipedia's newest and most compelling content. Who is this factoid aimed at? Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz I'm not seeing it on the main page or the archives. Was it removed? I would f***ing hope so... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was indeed pulled. Found where it's being discussed: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_March_25. Comment here: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Incidents_of_Necrophilia. Also here is where AndyTheGrump raised the alarm bells to get that shit off the front page. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT feminists may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender roles in Afghanistan needs rewrite

The page recently survived an AFD, which served to highlight the flaws in the current version of the article: it's made up of a single public domain text and reads like an essay. I'm bringing this to the attention of the Afghanistan, Sociology, Gender studies, and Feminism Wikiprojects in order that the article can be improved by having more editors work on it.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A draft at AFC needs some specialist attention

Please see Draft:Psychology's Feminist Voices, it looks notable but needs a thorough rewrite to be acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women and Wikipedia Study - Request for interviews, focus groups, etc.

Hi. I've been working on an interview-based research project about women and Wikipedia since January (initial project proposal) and recently received a WMF Individual Engagement Grant to continue the work (IEG proposal). If you're willing to participate in an interview or will be at Wikimania and would like to chat and/or take part in a focus group, please let me know. Also, if you'd just like to share your thoughts and opinions via email, I'd love to hear them. --Mssemantics (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender bias task force

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force is looking for new members, and is currently holding an RM to rename it the Gender gap task force. This was started last year but didn't become active, so there's a renewed effort to get it going. All are welcome! SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about "she" for ships

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A much gentler proposal about changing the Manual of Style to deprecate the use of "she" for ships. As it concerns the intersection of grammatical gender with actual gender, I thought some of you might be interested. --John (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex differences in psychology‎‎