Talk:Carceral feminism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angel.zhu534, Yolandaye, Nicholasrbadal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angel.zhu534, Yolandaye, Nicholasrbadal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

Carceral Feminism now directs here, as we should not have parallel articles on the same topic. If there are any significant differences between this version and the present article, they should be merged. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging students: Angel.zhu534, Yolandaye, Nicholasrbadal, Kellycrabtree,Sabrinalu10, Ml905, Ireneyu1018. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Source query

On which pages of the Krishna de la Cruz article can I find the "third-wave feminism" section? It's entirely sourced to that paper. There's a copy here, but I can't find anything about third-wave feminism. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It was added on 30 November by Nicholasrbadal. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I've removed it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Original research

This essay seems to be OR and much of it appears to be a WP:SYN violation. Sources are used that do not mention "carceral feminism", a term that seems to have been used for the first time in 2007. The article should begin by explaining the origin of the term and who uses it. Instead it seems to offer the author's personal view of a range of issues, some of them not mentioned by the sources. Does anyone identify as a "carceral feminist"?

It would take weeks of work to sort this out. I'm therefore minded to redirect the page to Feminism, and will do soon unless someone objects and has a better suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Page history

Hi Anthony, we seem to have lost the page history, which is now at Carceral feminism (version 3), following this request from MartinPoulter. This is the third time I've seen drafts moved over to pages that already exist (not by Anthony) and the page histories deleted to make way for them, then either not undeleted or undeleted but moved elsewhere. I can't see any reason to do that, and creating a new page in mainspace is best avoided. Can the histories be merged, please? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• @SlimVirgin and MartinPoulter: I have found 4 apparently distinct editing histories on the theme of carceral feminism, some parallel, now at these names:-
  1. Carceral feminism, 5 edits, from 21:34, 21 February 2019 to 19:41, 29 May 2019‎, running at about 6000 bytes
  2. Carceral feminism (version 2), from 04:18, 29 November 2017 (started as stub), gradually lengthened to 17:18, 29 November 2017‎ (25,307 bytes)
  3. Carceral feminism (version 3), from 07:37, 5 September 2017‎ (started as stub), gradually lengthened to 20:47, 10 February 2018‎ (31,389 bytes)
  4. Carceral feminism (version 3), 2 edits, 23:46, 12 March 2018 (4,712 bytes) and 23:47, 12 March 2018 (4,729 bytes)
  • Please, what do you want to be done to what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @ElectroChip123, Christian75, SlimVirgin, and MartinPoulter: pinging Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Anthony, thanks for explaining. Can the histories please be merged back into Carceral feminism? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem (so far as I can tell) is that "carceral feminism" is an antifeminist fringe position. I redirected the last version to feminism because fixing it would have been a huge job. If the most recent edits had been made to mainspace, I would have reverted them. Instead, they were made in draftspace, then this page was deleted to accommodate them, and the original page history moved. That should never have happened. The result is that we have this article now appearing at the top of Google, which seems to cement that "carceral feminism" is a thing. So we need the page history to be restored, then if someone wants to add text instead of the redirect, they can first gain consensus on talk by demonstrating that this is a real position, and not something that should be discussed elsewhere (e.g. in Antifeminism. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @ElectroChip123, Christian75, SlimVirgin, and MartinPoulter: I cannot history-merge them all :: #2 and #3 are WP:Parallel histories, and independent of each other; each started as a stub. #1 and #4 are odd bits that people likely started by extracting bits of text from #2 and/or #3 and after a time lost interest in. Best put a history-information section at the start of Talk:Carceral feminism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Carceral feminism (version 3) is the page that was here that you moved. The draftspace creator should have edited this page, rather than create a fork in draftspace. So those edits need to be merged back into this page. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • On the basis of a Google Scholar search as well as the sources mentioned in the article, it seemed to me that this term is sufficiently in use in scholarly literature to merit its own article. (I deleted from the draft one reference that was published on Medium.com, i.e. self-published.) However, if the sources involved are WP:FRINGE then I accept they shouldn't be used for notability: I'm not familiar with them but note that they are academic journals and books published by reputable publishers. It's odd to see the term "antifeminist" used in reference to a concept used in Feminist Media Studies, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society and International Feminist Journal of Politics. I do note that the third hit I get in my search says the term is problematic. @SlimVirgin:, Can you explain why the remaining sources should be dismissed as fringe? Are they junk journals? We should be open to the possibility, but given this existing literature it seems sensible to take a default position that carceral feminism is "a thing" that merits a Wikipedia article. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • To make my concern more explicit, "'carceral feminism' is an antifeminist position" can be a legitimately held opinion, but would it be Original Research for Wikipedia to state it as fact or is that specific claim backed by reliable sources? MartinPoulter (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Martin, no one calls themselves a "carceral feminist", so clearly this is an antifeminist position or a criticism of feminism. If you can find enough RS to support that it's notable criticism, then fine, although bear in mind that a lot has changed in feminism in the last couple of years. But that's a separate issue. What concerns me is that anyone would think it's okay to ask that a page be deleted to make way for a draftspace version—especially a draft written by an IP about a contentious issue, and even more so when you can see that an editor has expressed concern on talk about OR/SYN and redirected it (although without either of those issues, it still wouldn't be okay). Could you not have advised the IP editor to make their edits to the existing Carceral feminism page like anyone else? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
          • @SlimVirgin: "no one calls themselves a "carceral feminist", so clearly this is an antifeminist position or a criticism of feminism" I accept the antecedent, but the logic doesn't follow and the conclusion is an extraordinary claim. I made a mistake in assuming this was uncontroversial and not looking into the talk page of the target redirect, and I apologise for that. The origin of the article (by an IP or otherwise) is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia deserves an article on it, which depends on the coverage of the subject in reliable sources: it was on that basis that I judged the draft to be ready for mainspace. "What concerns me is that anyone would think it's okay to ask that a page be deleted" I only asked for a redirect to be deleted. This is a normal procedure for moving a draft to namespace if the draft is correctly named. "Could you not have advised the IP editor to make their edits to the existing Carceral feminism page" 1) I don't see what this would achieve, and like I say it's irrelevant if the draft is appropriate for mainspace. 2) I have no reliable way to contact that editor. "If you can find enough RS to support that it's notable criticism, then fine" I've already shown that anyone can easily find multiple scholarly sources using the term. You haven't given any reason to discount those sources. If they are junk journals, you need to make the case that they are. The net effect of what has happened is that an article that was in mainspace has been in effect deleted, but on the basis of one person's opinion, without an AFD or similar discussion that would allow you to back up your reasoning with reliable sources. Redirecting to another article when there was no objection is fine. Now there's a disagreement, it needs to be solved by consensus, not by unilateral action. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
            • @MartinPoulter: I agree with your last point: "it needs to be solved by consensus, not by unilateral action". That's my objection to what happened here; an admin deleting a page history to replace it with a draft, without discussion, is "unilateral action". I don't care much about this article, but I'm concerned about admins deleting page histories and replacing them with preferred versions. That's why I'm commenting so much.
              Re: "I only asked for a redirect to be deleted". No, you asked that the page history be deleted. If you want to replace the redirect with text, all you have to do is edit the article. Add the words you want to see in the article and press save. If you're adding someone else's words from a draft, add attribution in the edit summary. I asked Anthony to merge the draft's history with this article's history, so that all the attribution would be in one place, but he split the articles instead. So now if you want to add words from the draft, you can do so citing Carceral feminism (draft) in the edit summary. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Break 1

• • • • @SlimVirgin: In your message starting "Carceral feminism (version 3) is the page ...", do "those edits" mean edits #3 or edits #4 as listed above? What should they be merged back into? If they are edits #4, they are the wrong length to fit into any other of the 4 edit histories listed above. If they started as a partial copy-and-paste form somewhere, there is nothing that I can do here about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Anthony, here is the situation. Martin asked you to make a move that was an "uncontroversial technical request". But it was not uncontroversial. In addition, you made several moves that were not needed to achieve what Martin wanted. The result is a split and misleading page history. So I'm asking you to do one of two things:

1. Undo your moves to restore things to the way they were before the request, which will mean Draft:Carceral feminism will be back at that page.

   OR

2. Merge the history of Carceral feminism (version 3)—which was at Carceral feminism until your move—back into the current Carceral feminism. This means (a) delete "Carceral feminism"; (b) move "Carceral feminism (version 3)" to "Carceral feminism"; (c) undelete "Carceral feminism". (I don't know why you are making a distinction between 3 and 4 in your post of 04:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC). They are part of one page history from creation at 07:37, 5 September 2017‎ until my revert at 23:49, 12 March 2018‎.)

   AND

3. Ignore/leave as is Carceral feminism (version 2). That was created at Carceral Feminism (title case), perhaps by mistake, perhaps as a fork, at 04:18, 29 November 2017‎. Animalparty redirected it to Carceral feminism (sentence case) at 17:19, 29 November 2017. There was no need to move that to "Carceral feminism (version 2)", but equally there's no need to move it back. These problems arise because students are asked to write essays in which they have no long-term investment, and sorting them out is very time-consuming, so redirecting is sometimes the only thing that can be done.

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• @ElectroChip123, Christian75, SlimVirgin, and MartinPoulter: I repeat: I cannot history-merge any of them:
  •  #2 and #3 are WP:Parallel histories, and independent of each other; each started as a stub, and gradually became long.
  • #1 was at Draft:Carceral Feminism and I had moved it to Carceral feminism.
  • The old Carceral feminism was a long article (#3), until someone overwrote it with a new stub (#4); as you said, I had moved it to Carceral feminism (version 3).
  • - - - - I have now done this:
  • I have moved Carceral feminism (= #1, the stub which was at Draft:Carceral Feminism) to Carceral feminism (version 4).
  • I have moved #3 (Carceral feminism (version 3), from 07:37, 5 September 2017‎ (started as stub), 20:47, 10 February 2018‎) to Carceral feminism.
  • I have left #4 (late redirects, and a recent short stub) at Carceral feminism (version 3).
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Carceral feminism (version 4) should not be in mainspace, so I've moved it to Talk:Carceral feminism (draft), which I was able to do without using the tools. (It isn't "version 4"; that title will cause more confusion.) Carceral feminism (version 3) needs to be merged back into Carceral feminism. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Anthony: I just realized that by not leaving a redirect, I had indeed used the tools, so I've reverted myself. Version 4 lives again. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• @ElectroChip123, Christian75, SlimVirgin, and MartinPoulter: This diff shows that there is no text at all in common between the last text edit of Carceral feminism and the first text edit of Carceral feminism (version 3) (ignoring redirect edits and blankings). There is no connected edit history between these two pages. What happened is that, while the text now in Carceral feminism was in Carceral feminism earlier (say around 10 February 2018‎), people repeatedly blanked it and redirected it, and that at 23:46/47, 12 March 2018‎ the IPA user User:2604:2000:c689:a400:f89e:b980:d297:31d2 added 2 edits of a new stub start at writing his own article about carceral feminism, and 2 minutes later User:SlimVirgin put an end to that attempt by reverting it to a redirect. What seems to remain is to decide which of these two articles ([1] and [2] at their latest text edits) is better as an article about carceral feminism, if a separate article about it is needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Anthony, the history at Carceral feminism (version 3) should be merged back into Carceral feminism, whence it came. I don't know why you think that these were, or ought to be, separate histories. The current "version 3" begins "23:02, 8 March 2018‎ SlimVirgin ... -31,367‎ redirect per talk". That was me reverting the text that had been added to Carceral feminism. I didn't start a new page with that edit. The final edit before your page move, "23:49, 12 March 2018‎ SlimVirgin -4,707‎ rv to Melcous", was also made to Carceral feminism. Those edits need to be restored to the page. I don't understand why you separated them. You point to these edits as though they're significant. They're not; that was someone editing Carceral feminism by reverting the redirect I'd added, and he or she was reverted. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Anthony, thank you. In addition, please delete Carceral feminism (version 3), which now has no history except for your move. It's an inappropriate title for mainspace, and it isn't needed. Finally, please move Carceral feminism (version 4) (again, an inappropriate title for mainspace) to Talk:Carceral feminism (draft) or something similar, without leaving a redirect. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• @SlimVirgin:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I'm grateful for your patience with this, and I apologise for assuming this as an uncontroversial move without looking into the history which would have revealed that it was controversial. The situation now seems to be that there is no draft which can be improved to make the article ready for mainspace. I still think the draft was ready for mainspace, and wish there had been a consensus process to replace it with a redirect rather than one contributor's say-so. To get the text I was editing, I have to go back into the history of Carceral feminism (draft). Copying-and-pasting to a new draft would create a version 5, which nobody wants. What is the recommended the way to continue improving the draft? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• @ElectroChip123, Christian75, SlimVirgin, and MartinPoulter: Start from these:-
  1. Carceral feminism (last text edit 17:18, 29 November 2017‎, 25,307 bytes)
  2. Carceral feminism (version 2) (last text edit 17:18, 29 November 2017‎, 25,307 bytes)
  3. Carceral feminism (draft) (last text edit 19:41, 29 May 2019‎, 6,201 bytes)
  • and choose which of these 3 (as at its last text edit) is the best article; revert it to text; work on it as you wish. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: "rather than one contributor's say-so"? What happened here is that you (also "one contributor", by the way) asked to have an article's history deleted to replace it with your preferred version. All you have to do now is ask the IP to add his or her text to this article like anyone else. Or you can do it by reverting to that version. If I revert back, citing WP:BRD, then we discuss on talk. That someone wrote a version in draftspace doesn't mean the usual editing process is abandoned. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

Martin, I think you haven't understood what happened here. I asked Anthony to merge your version (the draft) into this article's history. Then you could revert to that version if you wanted to. Instead, Anthony has split the histories. Your version is here. Anthony, if that's how you prefer to do it, those other versions should be moved to Talk:Whatever. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• @ElectroChip123, Christian75, SlimVirgin, and MartinPoulter: Please: First, the various people who have been editing or expressing an opinion here should do this:
  • Decide whether a separate article about carceral feminism is needed, rather than merely putting in article Feminism a new section about carceral feminism;
  • If this is agreed as "no", then tell me where to move the 3 articles which I list here.
  • If this is agreed as "yes", then choose which of these 4 articles about carceral feminism is best, rather than insisting about who-was-first;
    1. Carceral feminism (as it was at its last long text edit, 20:47, 10 February 2018‎, 31,389 bytes)
    2. Carceral feminism (as it was at the last of its two late short text edits, 23:47, 12 March 2018‎, 4,729 bytes)
    3. Carceral feminism (version 2) (as it was at its last text edit, 17:18, 29 November 2017‎, 25,307 bytes)
    4. Carceral feminism (draft) (as it was at its last text edit, 19:41, 29 May 2019‎, 6,201 bytes)

    (The last edit of all, of each of these pages, is a redirect to Feminism.)

    • then, revert that article to text, and:
    • If the choice is #3 or #4, than I will swop page names to move the chosen article to the plain name Carceral feminism.
    • Then tell me where to move the other two of those articles.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Anthony, please don't make any further moves without consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• @SlimVirgin: That is why I am asking for a discussion leading to a consensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-RfD

Following this RfD, the carceral feminism article is restored, though subject to AfD as normal going forward. All remaining redirects for carceral feminism point here. I believe Carceral Feminism (version 2) could safely be deleted since it has no substantial history, though Carceral feminism (version 2) does. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mharmon0718 (article contribs).

Needs Better Sourcing

This article (in particular, these sections: the introduction including the definition of carceral feminism; rape; and activist critiques and media discussion) need to have more complete sourcing. A number of sentences make objective claims that are uncited. Hosanna.galea (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hear Hear! If this article is to be deemed fit to be in Wikipedia it requires a lot more work in the sourcing. There is a lot of dogmatic contentious statements that have only the scantiest of sourcing. Dogmatic and contentious statements need more rather than less documentation. Because it is written in sholarly language (indeed too much so) I feel unsophisticated readers are likely to merely accept statements as true and factual when this may or may not be the case. Though unsophisticated readers are frankly unlikley to get to the end of this article. If I can be bothered I intend to list a lot of statements that I feel need more support. Rbngrss 2022 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant Paragraph Removal

Hi all. There's a paragraph in the "Activists Critique..." section about Canada that I believe should be deleted as it is irrelevant. It is mainly about forced sterilization of Indigenous women which has nothing to do with prisons at all and the only bit that mentions prisons comments on the over-representation of Indigenous women with no attempt to link this to carceral feminism. If I haven't read a good case for keeping it I'll remove it in a months. Rbngrss 2022 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)