Talk:Timeline of feminism

New article

I've just moved this article from my sandbox to the main namespace. It undoubtedly has many omissions and lots of room for improvement; I hope other editors will help make it more complete. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your purpose very much, and you did a good job! But before you start a new article, you should have looked carefully to see if Wikipedia already had such an article. Unfortunately, it did: the article Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) has been here for years and covers the very same topic.--Aciram (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

When I started the article, it had a different focus from Timeline of women's rights (other than voting), an article that I was well aware of. It contained primarily information about feminist philosophy and activism. Since then, other users have expanded it with a wide variety of information, and its focus has drifted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. Then nothing of this is your fault then! But this can easily be fixed. If this is an article that should focus only upon specific feminist philosophy and activism, and not changes and reforms in women's legal rights, then this article and Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) can coexist excellently here in Wikipedia. But for them to both be here, I am afraid it is extremely important to make sure that the articles differ from each other. I suggest that you state the article's purpose even more clearly in the beginning of the article in a way that can not be misunderstood, for example: "This article should only contain information about philosophy and feminist activism, not about reforms of laws in women's rights. For the later, see Timeline of women's rights (other than voting)". Something like that. To make it more clear, you can also change the name of the article. If someone ads the wrong subject to an article, then you, and any one else, can simply remove the addition with the edit explanation: "This article is about feminism as an idea, not about legal reforms in women's rights: for that, go to Timeline of women's rights (other than voting)". As it is now, your article are in danger of being deleted because its similarity to Timeline of women's rights (other than voting). I suggest that you simply rephrase the explanation in the beginning of the article as to what the article is suppose to be about, and then boldly remove the content which is not suppose to be in the article. You are in full rights to do so! Otherwise, this article could be deleted, which would be a great shame. --Aciram (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

From what you, the creator of the article, have said about the purpose of the article, I propose that the article be renamed "Ideological Timeline of feminism", to avoid people from misinterpreting it. Would this be correct? --Aciram (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what "ideological timeline of feminism" means, but renaming the article is fine with me. Though I created the article, I don't have strong feelings about its future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure about the name either (I am a Swede, thus not sure about what would be correct in English), but a name change would be good, to make it more clear. If you have the energy, why not remove a bit of the incorrect additions to it? But, thank you for your input!--Aciram (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

feminism vs religious women

Is it just me, or is this article less a "Timeline of feminism" (as the article is tiled) and more like a timeline of women in religion? A quick look through, there are a lot of the entries about women being ordained/becoming ministers, in addition to entries about women getting the vote. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This article's subject is already covered by another article

I don't really have the time for this discussion myself, but because I noticed it, I though I should mention it all the same: this article cover the very same subjects as the article Timeline of women's rights (other than voting). I can't see any true difference between them - of course, they include different text, written by different authors, and the title is different, but the information from one of the articles could easily be transferred to the other one. The two articles cover the same subjects and the same information is suitable to be included in the both, so essentially, the two articles has the same function here in Wikipedia. The other article have been here for years, this article has not. Perhaps there should only be one article with the same subject here. As I said, I don't have the time to engage in a discussion, but as I know that Wikipedia should not have two articles with the same subject and purpose, I though I should mention it, when I noticed it. --Aciram (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Timeline of feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111130092718/http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_634591.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_634591.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120403010419/http://huc.edu/newspubs/pressroom/article.php?pressroomid=1411 to http://huc.edu/newspubs/pressroom/article.php?pressroomid=1411
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402202704/http://www.lpts.edu/News-Events/article.asp?intid=307 to http://www.lpts.edu/News-Events/article.asp?intid=307
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402192514/http://intranet.cbhslewisham.nsw.edu.au:82/sor/austrelcomms/contents/buddhists/budbib2.htm to http://intranet.cbhslewisham.nsw.edu.au:82/sor/austrelcomms/contents/buddhists/budbib2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111041312/http://emptynestzendo.org/2010/10/women-ancestors-document-approved/ to http://emptynestzendo.org/2010/10/women-ancestors-document-approved/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611035801/http://news.myjoyonline.com/news/201106/67053.asp to http://news.myjoyonline.com/news/201106/67053.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029135105/http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/10/21/3873378.htm/ to http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/10/21/3873378.htm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011005036/http://torah.cbebk.org/about/our-soferet/ to http://torah.cbebk.org/about/our-soferet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion

This article seems fairly stagnant, and most of it should be merged into Timeline of second-wave feminism. That article is longer, well-referenced, and more detailed, and could easily absorb this one.

There are only four bullet points in this article that don't belong to the second wave. Three of those four are not really timeline points at all, but definitions of waves one, three, and four; these three probably don't need merging since their respective articles already have their own, more detailed definitions. Still, the entries here should be examined for useful references which might not be in the main articles. That leaves one last bullet point, the one on Riot Grrl: this topic is already covered in an entire section at Third-wave feminism. Mathglot (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been listed at WT:FEMINISM#Merge proposal. Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been listed at WT:WPLIST#Merge proposal. Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been listed at WT:WMNHIST#Merge proposal. Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Notified major post-split editors JaneSwifty, 173.62.200.237, and 76.98.184.25 at their respective talk pages. Mathglot (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

agree there should only be one timeline, perhaps divided by the different waves.Fred (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This doesn't really make sense: Timeline of second-wave feminism only covers part of the story (both ideologically and chronologically, as that article makes clear), so merging Timeline of feminism into that article would be very strange. Merging that article into this article is arguable, although it would need some serious work to avoid major problems with WP:UNDUE. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Drover's Wife. There's a lot more to feminism than just the second wave, even if this timeline doesn't cover most of that right now. This article needs some major work and expansion, but it certainly shouldn't be merged into an article on a subset of feminism. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@The Drover's Wife: it does make sense, but I should have been more clear about why. You're right of course, that Timeline of second-wave feminism only covers part of the story, namely: three decades in the latter half of the twentieth century. So at first blush, I would agree with you: it seems completely backwards to merge this article into that one. In a more perfect world, Timeline of feminism would be bigger, perhaps including roughly equal amounts of material on First and Second waves, as well as the other two, according to their weight, and we would be merging Timeline of second-wave feminism into this article, instead of the other way round.

However, we don't live in that world. And even if we did, if we'd just end up with a huge Timeline of feminism article of about 240kb which would end up having to be split back out for size reasons into four timeline articles. So why go all through that merging, just to end up splitting again?

What we have now, are several general timeline articles in the area of feminism not specific to region, and other similar ones, per region (especially US-related):

Details and comparison of women- and feminism-related timeline articles at "world" vs U.S. levels

Timeline of feminism (this article) – covers the period roughly from 1960-2008 by decades; 10kb in size, 13 bullet items, mostly definitions of sub-movements, and not specific events tied to one date. Timeline of women's suffrage – covers (1718–2015); 40kb; 306 flag-icon bullets with year of suffrage by country; some have additional text, most just have year and flag. Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) – covers (1718–2018); 322kb (!) with 896 date-related event bullets, however the lead says "excludes ideological changes and events within feminism and antifeminism; for that, see Timeline of feminism" so apparently no overlap with this article. Timeline of second-wave feminism – covers (1960–1990); 69kb; 162 event-related bullet points; a mature timeline, all bullets relate to specific events by date. There are other, more specific timeline articles about women by region (1, 2), by time period (3), by occupation (4, 5), or combinations of the above (6, 7). Standing out among the regions having feminism- or women-related timelines, is the United States (not surprisingly) which has its own set of articles parallel to those above. These are all fairly sparse, low-activity articles, with lots of overlap over the more general ones listed above (note the similarity with the "world" articles, per inter-article diffs): Timeline of feminism in the United States – (1960s–2000s); 9kb; very similar to Timeline of feminism, (see inter-article diff) Timeline of women's suffrage in the United States – (1777–1984); 23kb; 107 entries; (diff) Article itself acknowledges the overlap, by instructing editors to "also add entries to the Timeline of women's suffrage article," in hidden text at the top. (diff is not very helpful) Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting) – (1718–2017) 147kb; 295 entries; (diff) Timeline of second-wave feminism in the United States – does not exist, and for good reason. Apart the contributions from France and the U.K., there would be a huge overlap with Timeline of second-wave feminism.

In a way, the chief issue with this article is that it's not really organized as a timeline at all: it's more like a glossary or list about sub-movements within feminism. For example, it defines First wave, Second-wave, Black feminism, Fat feminism, Chicana feminism, and French feminism. There are actually only two bullets tied to a particular date-related event, timeline-style. As such, under the current title, it fails WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.

Perhaps it should simply be renamed to a list, like perhaps List of movements within feminism, and then its length, focus, and lack of event-related bullets would make a lot more sense. Given the mature appearance of Timeline of second-wave feminism and the likely imminent creation of Timeline of first-wave feminism (per this proposal), it seems to me that we ought to either merge the content out so it's not lost, or perhaps recast it as a list article, where it would have more utility. Or, we could just leave it as is, where it will probably just stagnate, since I don't see Timeline of feminism having any reasonable migration path to a real timeline article, as things now stand. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

But the problem you're highlighting, rather than there being a problem with this article's topic, is that this article is crap. As a topic, it slides perfectly into the structure you explained above and is the obvious big gap in the series. Redirecting it somewhere isn't helpful: the solution is that we need this article to not be crap. You're probably right that if we merged the second-wave feminism timeline in, and the massive gaps outside the span of that article were covered here, we'd have to spin it back out as a summary-style article - but that's okay, as it would solve the actual problem. The more that I think about this, I think it actually makes a lot of sense to merge that article into this article, because it gives the structure and the examples for how to make the rest of this article not crap, and it solves a secondary problem no one's brought up yet in that categorising events by "waves" of feminism is vague, in the eye of the beholder and in my book pretty useless. In the event this article got big and articles had to be spun out again, it would be far better to divide it up by time rather than "wave". The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC) The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Believe me, I see your point, and the "ideal world" side of me (your proposal) and the "yeah, but, it's never gonna happen" pragmatic side of me are in conflict here. I'd rather see the first, but I suspect it will be the second. Let's see what others (hopefully) think about this. Thanks for your feedback, and any help you could give augmenting this article (or creating timelines for waves 3 and 4) would be great.

The only (minor) disagreement I have with what you wrote isn't even about what goes where; it's the part about "'waves' of feminism [being] vague..." or useless. That might be true, and I know there's criticism about that, but that's not our decision to make, and we can just address the controversy about that right in the article, probably in the lead, and state that it's vague with some sources pro and con, in due proportion, of course. Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the articles on the waves of feminism themselves: clearly, there are sources talking about them (although fourth-wave feminism is a shitshow of WP:OR). I'm talking about the idea that these (especially anything after the second wave) are in any way clear or discrete enough that you can have a timeline of events for them that wouldn't be itself a shitshow of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

This gets especially silly with fourth-wave feminism, which is, outside of Wikipedia and a handful of seriously fringe sources, not actually a thing. The article lays claim to a bunch of prominent people and organisations, none of which identify with the term themselves, and of the five or so people it cites as ever having used the term, only one is even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Now, if someone wants to have an article on fourth-wave feminism, I could care less (we have plenty of articles on fringe theories) - but what on earth would be an "event" in fourth-wave feminism such that you could ever have Timeline of fourth-wave feminism? In that hypothetical case you suggested, literally every item would be WP:OR. It absolutely is our decision to make not to disappear down a rabbit hole of WP:OR (intentionally doing it by "wave" rather than by time period) when there's absolutely no point to it. I don't get the fascination which trying to do a timeline by "wave" instead of, as every other timeline on Wikipedia, by time period: it serves no logical purpose that I can see. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: By time period is fine by me. I'm not at all up-to-date on fourth wave, and if it's as silly as you say, then all the more reason to go by period. Afaic, one possible natural dividing line is 1949 (The Second Sex) to present, for the last division, although conceivably you could back it up to 1870 or so to include the suffragettes if that wouldn't be too big an article. Which still leaves us with, "What's to become of this article?"

What do you think about renaming this one, List of movements within feminism, then renaming Timeline of second-wave feminism to Timeline of feminism, and then suggest a modification of the proposal at Talk:First-wave feminism#Split proposal: Timeline to have the split-off timeline moved to the beginning of (the new) Timeline of feminism after the previously outlined steps are concluded? Mathglot (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious about the content of this one being useful at all: what else would you envisage including in a list of movements within feminism article? I also don't quite understand your second suggestion about the split-off timeline. Otherwise I think we're getting basically on the same page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. It shouldn't be merged into an article that deals with only part of it. Timeline of feminism is the parent article, and the other timelines are daughter articles offering more detail. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)