Talk:Women and the environment

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): PatiluD, Cruz909, Iyaunti1. Peer reviewers: PatiluD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naky3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelParkTaylor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from 2009

This is a shocking poor and narrow minded article. It is full of lies, speculative statements, half-truths, misleading statements, and just plain nonsense. --207.237.230.38 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I, and I say this as a pro-feminist male and an ecologist, must agree. This is an extremely poorly written article. It makes the unfounded claim that women's role in ecology has been ignored- especially given that most ecology looks at society as a whole. In the first section, it makes the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation is equal to causation, implying that the rise of feminism and the rise of ecology are linked. Unless an entire section demonstrating this link can be written, it should in my opinion be deleted. The author then makes the mistake of assuming that rural life automatically makes one ecologically wise. Her sources from there on out are too broad and not adequately supported. While there may be a place for an article on Women in Environmental Activism, articles like this belong on blogs or, at best, as external links on the eco-feminism page. While there may be a call for some page looking at ecology with a feminist perspective, perhaps expanding on the Chipko movement, this one does an extremely poor job of it. --Ejdoyle (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff reappears to be the old nonsense about Native Americans allegedly having a similar relationship with nature. Now that has been debunked, it appears that the old nonsense is being repeated, but with Native Americans being replaced by woman. Dare I hope someone real scientific and historical evidence as opposed to bogus women's and feminist studies gibberish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.244.181 (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

A lot of this article seems to be biased and not sourced. Take the following sentences: "Women are often the most directly affected by environmental issues, so they become more concerned about environmental problems. Studies have shown the direct effects of chemicals and pesticides on human health.[5]" They contradict each other. Women are not the "most directly affected by environmental issues." Rather, "chemicals and pesticides" have a "direct effect" on "human health" not female health. The neutrality of this article seems to be largely in dispute. --Rotellam1 (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominees for Women and the Environment

I would certainly add these two names Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall to your list of woman environmentalist. These two woman have been major inspirations for an entire generation of female and male environmentalists.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's Connection with the environment

I would like to substantially add and modify the section about women’s attitude and the environment. There is merit to the already existing section but the issue goes much deeper than the information currently presented. It is true that in many developing countries rely on nature for survival and that women are the primary users of the land. Women are responsible for agricultural work, food production and general land cultivation. There exist a number of studies performed by economists, feminists and activists alike, such as Esther Boserup, Bina Agarwal, Carolyn Merchant and Vandana Shiva, that show the connection between women and the land. Gender and class inequalities exist and farming and land ownership play a major role when studying those inequalities.

Using a number of scholarly studies and articles, I propose to make an addition that shows the differences in the way women and men view and use the environment. I would to emphasize the gender division of labor, with regard to agriculture and land ownership regulations, and the effect it has on the environment, the economy, and the people. Also, there are newer factors, such as advancing technologies and climate change that affecting the role of women in land cultivation that should be explored and discussed. Alainas (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the article to indicate a more specific time period: "throughout history" sounds too general. BerikG (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Peer Review

The link for Caroline Merchant on the “Relationship between violence of Nature and Women” section is not set up properly. The link was inputted but you might want to change the brackets to make it work unless the link is not present on Wikipedia . In the same paragraph you have the line ‘both the environment and women have been viewed as exploitable resources that are significantly undervalued.’ If you have time and energy it might be interesting to explore this reality a little more, why is this the case? What parts of the world is this most prevalent?

Ecofeminism 4th sentence, spelling error she, should be the.

I would suggest reading through the article again with someone who can edit the grammatical problems with you. It is a very interesting article. I like the variety of examples you use of women environmentalists and women who initiated ecological movements. These could all be individual Wikipedia pages with links to your page. This is a very broad topic and an interesting subject. I think you edit the grammar again as well as address the other talk page questions you will be just fine.155.97.235.107 (Haskimas B Naskasi) 05:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

I would add a stronger thesis sentence explaining what this article is about, the name also seems really wordy, but im not sure what to make of it, this is also related to any concern about notability etc. 1.2 seems to need a copy edit with that quote, more for summary purposes. Also, the land-takeover piece could be a little expanded for copy edit. The 2.2.3 section could use a little expansion, maybe some discussion of land distribution policies. In the US there the homestead act might be a broader trend than just the US. Thekappen (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

I would like to see more statistics on how many women own land and how many countries it is legal for women to own land. This article is very one sided but that is the topic being covered. It says that women are more into farming than men because the trend of men going off to the city to work. But there are not facts about this. I would be really intrigued to see the numbers on this. over all the information provided was interesting and well stated. 208.54.4.221 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

I would love to change the title but Wikipedia requires a minimum of ten edits before it allows you to change article titles. I like the idea of addressing the issue of women and the environment seen as exploitable resources. I was considering doing this and just need to take the time to add to it. It can be added to the section about the connection between violence of environment and women. Also, I had thought about increasing land distribution and property rights so that is a good suggestion.

There are sections of this article that were already in existence when I started to work on it. I am trying to clear up some of the one-sidedness or at least present the information in a way that clarifies that the ideas are not proven fact, rather they are just ideas and theories. Thanks for all the advice! I certainly have some more work to do. Alainas (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Alainas

Comments on the new incarnation/sections of "Women and the Environment"

This was an article that had lot's of problems (signaled earlier on the Talk page) and the new additions look really good. It would be good to make explicit in the Talk page the sections that need attention (that you have not worked on) for future improvements.

The lead paragraph sounds as if the World Bank was the entity that first problematized women's relationship with the environment from 1991 onwards. This needs refinement, you say from a resource management perspective, but a more explicit refinement is necessary. Also the quotation needs a reference at the end of the sentence.

Avoid general and timeless statements. Several sentences require specification of time frame/year, place, specific social group.

For example, "An increasing number of women are taking over and expanding their involvement in agricultural tasks but this has not changed the gender division of labor with regard to reproductive work." When?

The Boserup sentence needs to specify that her research focused on changes in the 1940s, 1950s (verify from tables in Chapters 1 and 3).

"The dependence on nature and the environment for survival is common among Third World women.[3" sounds like a truism that holds for everyone--women or men. It needs to be specified, in the next sentence that elaborates the sense in which this holds more for women than men. Also, social class and rural location is clearly at work here. Needs to be part of the specification.

Avoid passive tense and specify the author(s) in: "For this reason, it has been argued that this dependence creates an deeply rooted connection between women and their surroundings." Apply this style throughout.

"The views women have on nature are unique in that they connect the land to immediate survival and concern for future generations rather than simply looking at the land as a resource with monetary value." This sentence is a contentious one that attributes an essence to women, rather than their attitudes being shaped by their material conditions of work, which could just as well hold for men. Even though you reference an author, there is need for a critical evaluative note here.

The next sentence: "With the development of newer technologies, there has been a shift to more non-farm activities, however, men more than women are the ones participating in the shift, leaving women behind." has a timeless quality again, whereas you are referring to evidence from Boserup (1970).

"Kenyan land takeover:" seems to belong to the movements discussion.

Bina Agarwal's critique of ecofeminism needs to be elaborated (bulleted points are not clear).

The "Welfare" and "Efficiency" sections need to explained. What is their connection to the Environmental Feminism section? These seem to be the arguments for supporting land rights for women. So, they belong earlier, but then the connection to the environment story is not clear (i.e. what is the connection of women having land rights to their relationship with the environment?).

Women Environmentalists section needs to move beyond biographical information to elaboration of the ideas and achievements of these women. For example, elaborate on Maathai's Greenbelt movement. BerikG (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)BerikG

Summary of contributions and suggestions for further improvement

As it has been stated a number of times above, this started out as an very poorly written article. Unfortunately, due to lack of time and the massive amount of work needed, I could not make all the improvements necessary but did contribute a significant amount. My contributions start at the beginning of the article and stop just before "Women's attitude and the environment". The one exceptions is an added movement, the "Kenyan Land Takeover". All of the following sections, "Women's attitude and the environment", "Environmental change and women", and "Gender and perception of the environment" could benefit from increased editing and revisions. In my contribution, I touched a some of those ideas but there is still a need for further research and contributions.

Also, as BerikG stated, the Women Environmentalists as well as the Environmentalist Movements sections could benefit from elaboration.

Thank you to all those who read the article and gave advice. Hopefully, with a little more time, effort and further contributions this article will become a source of validity and interesting information. User:Alainas —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits by San Diego State-Women In Development (WMNST-580) Students

9.23.18 I added missing reference information (reference #23) to "efficiency effect" subheading under Bina Agarwal's critique of ecofeminism. I corrected the spelling of Bina Agarwal's name on the link and I also added the following sentence to this same subheading."Environmentally sound use of the land resource and reduced outmigration to cities by women and their dependents are other benefits of women’s secure land rights" This is part of our Wiki training coursework by the above named university and class. Citation Information [23]-Agarwal, Bina. A Field of One's Own : Gender and Land Rights in South Asia / Bina Agarwal. Cambridge University Press, 1994. Thank you for allowing us to edit this article Pati D.PatiluD (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Developed Nations section undergoing edit

Hello, There has not been much talk on this page since 2009, however, I am hoping that someone will respond to my inquiry. As part of our class project, I am editing the section 3.0 Developed Nations. Our assignment is to add three paragraphs and my original thoughts were to add one paragraph each for the United States, United Kingdom and China. The issue I am having is finding relevant source material for China. I have more than enough material to write all three paragraphs on the United States, and I have enough information to write up a paragraph or two on the United Kingdom. China does not seem to have any information regarding women in the environment that would be applicable to this article. If anyone has any thoughts to share, I would greatly appreciate any input. Thank you. PatiluD (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding to Ecological Movement initiated by Women

Hey all for my class assignment I need to add three paragraphs to a Wiki article. I would like to add a section on the NoDAPL movement that happened in 2016. I think this would be a great addition due to the amount of women leaders in the movement like LaDonna BraveBull Allard who invited other tribes and supporters to come to Standing Rock to protest the pipeline and her call for help began the movement. I would also like to add that not only was the NoDAPL movement protecting water but also the women living on the reservation due to the violence they experience at the hands of the pipeline workers. Would love to hear some feedback on my topic of choice and if I should add anything else. Thanks Cruz909 (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Published changes to developed nations heading

I have completed the addition of the United States subheading under developed nations. This was part of a course project under the Department of Women's Studies at San Diego State University. I used this article to critique, evaluate and for addition to an existing article. My intention was to include additional paragraphs pertaining to China and the U.K. under the developed nations heading; however there was too much information to include on the United States that could not be left out. Therefore, I focused on the U.S. for this assignment. I would like to see more reporting under this heading as my research indicated differences between the original three nations selected. This concludes my assignment and I found it to be an enjoyable process from the training through the actual publication of my additions. PatiluD (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Women and the Environment

WMNSTD580

19.18.2018

Many features go into making a successful Wikipedia page, such as reliable references, unbiased presentation of information, an equal presentation of viewpoints, and the relativity and organization of information.  One of the most important aspects of successful Wikipedia pages are the academic sources that back up the included information and statements. Without these citations, Wikipedia loses it’s credibility in providing sound, unbiased, and academic information.

The article on Women and the Environment does a thorough job of including reliable sources when relaying quotes or information. The majority of the links provide sources that are directly correlated to the information stated, and there are multiple sources in each paragraph, which WikiTutorials encourages. When investigating some of the links in terms of the information taken from then, most all of them provide insightful core information from the source.

One of the first citations, [2], was confusing because it seemed to bring up the correct source but not the direct page of the re-stated information. As Wikipedia has strict rules on plagiarism, it makes sense not to find word-for-word or close-paraphrased information in the linked sources, but this link seemed to simply go to the website and not the page or direct place of the information. The information was sourced from The Global Development Research Center (para 1), and the general fact used from this source as stated in the text reads: “Starting in the 1980s, policy makers and governments became more mindful of the connection between the environment and gender issues” (Srinivas, 2012,). The citation’s link, when clicked on, takes the reader to the general introduction page of all of the Global Development Research Center’s information. On this page, there are five different subjects and 15 different subsections, two of which are gender and the environment. Under the environment tab, there is no reference to gender. Under the gender subsection, there is an entire page on Gender and the Environment, which seems more reasonable of a source to site for this information.

The next sentence in the paragraph, which includes direct information and a quote from that Gender and Environment page under the Global Development Research Center’s website, is sited with the Gender and Environment page. If one is to assume “double-sourcing” information is reasonable, and in this case might make more sense, the former fact referenced should include the latter’s citation as well.

Some editors on the talk page even noted the sources seemed “too broad and not adequately supported” (Doyle, 2010, ), but it seemed a trivial problem compared to the controversies expressed by most. Many editors seemed to find the article incredibly bias and of a general poor academic quality, which seemed surprising. The main problems expressed by other editors were bias presentations of information, logical fallacies, contradictions, and blanket statements (Talk:Women and Environment, 2018, ).

An interesting example of some flaws found in this article, such as a lack of established credibility and  blanket-statements—meaning a claim made very generally to make a point with little evidence given to back it up—are seen in the section titled “Criticism” under “Environmental or ecological feminism” in the “Theoretical Theory” segment of the article.

The first flaw in this section is a lack of credibility or even identity given to the women who claims to critique ecological feminism, Bina Agaarwal. The section begins with, “Bina Agaarwal has critiqued the ideas of environmental feminism”(Women and the Environment, 2018,) and provides no other overview of this women and why she may have credibility in her viewpoints. When searching for her name elsewhere in the article, it is mentioned two other times. First, under “Land Ownership and property management”, stating “Bina Agarwal, has written a great deal about gender and land rights in Third World,”(Women and the Environment, 2018). One could strongly argue the vague information that is included on Bina under “Women’s connection with the environment”: “Land ownership and property management” is not enough to establish credibility. Her name appears again in another statement of her opposing Ecofeminism in the “Theoretical Theory” segment. Although a source is given to Bina’s name in her second mention, the link is directed to an article extrapolating on the criticisms of ecological feminism, and still does not give any background to Bina Agarwal.

The second fault in this section is seen in the bulleted list given to state Bina Agarwal’s criticisms. In this list, the reasons in opposing ecofeminism appear to be brushed over, provide no backing or further explanation to the claims, and only four out of the eight statements made are sourced. For example, the text notes that Bina “proposed problems with welfare, efficiency, and source of land” (Women and the Environment, 2018,). The section stating her criticisms with efficiency includes the lines: “Many women have specific and often greater knowledge about certain crops and planting patterns,” “Studies have shown the possibility that women use resources more efficiently than men,” and “Many women have specific and often greater knowledge about certain crops and planting patterns” (Women and the Environment, 2018,). These statements are very bold and deserve further explanation but they are not cited and they are not backed up with Bina’s research or explanations. A tactful elaboration on the information to strengthen the content of this section seems to be needed. Perhaps bias can be seen in this lack of development in the alternate opinions and arguments posed against ecofeminism.

Although this wikipedia page, Women and the Environment, is successful in presenting a lot of relevant and interesting information, it may not be sourced or allocated correctly. The somewhat incorrect allocation and backup of this information seemed to hint as a few biases that are in the text. Overall, the page has a strong core and arguably needs some detail refinement. (comment by Kvanderveur, copied from Draft:Article Evaluation by Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC))

References

==Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Crises in Southeast Asia== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2022 and 25 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samanthaklos (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Abratner.

Wiki Education assignment: Sex, Power and International Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beg226, Ger226, Nmk426 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 4xxxx4 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environment and Justice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bee-Earthy, Jasmine4704, Naturelover1012 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bee-Earthy (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Pulled from 'Population' sub category. I feel like this is good information but it's also too much information... The key point is population is a big factor regarding climate change and sex education has helped women make more informed decisions regarding having children. I don't think a short essay is needed when there's so much more women are doing for the environment besides having less children or none. Maybe it can be rewritten and placed back into the article but until I'll leave it here.

"With access for women to family planning, education and 'socio-economic development', working hand-in-hand to increase awareness, and accessibility.  Many countries and organizations have begun a discussion around this topic, such as the United Nations conference on population and development in Cairo, discussing the 'holistic' approaches to reproductive health, as well as the American Academy of Sciences and Royal Society of London in New Delhi. The second Millennium development goal, is to achieve "universal primary education" explaining this as a voluntary limitation of family size is going to help improve the disparity of education between genders and thus lower population as a result. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is starting to implement development goals associated with population focusing on the youth, in terms of education, child survival, access to contraception and reproductive information and activities that can provide monetary reward. Along with USAID, the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche sur la Population pour le Développement (CERPOD), a Sahelian intergovernmental population research center is another governmental group that has incorporated new population research of communities and individuals that will influence policy and implementation.

Many of the environmental effects of climate change have disproportionately placed women in more vulnerable circumstances. Environmental occurrences that affect the activities women are found to be mainly responsible for in developing countries include increase in storm frequency and intensity, increase in floods, droughts, and fires. The Indian Government's National Action Plan on Climate Change said "The impacts of climate change could prove particularly severe for women. With climate change there would be increasing scarcity of water, reductions in yields of forest biomass, and increased risks to human health with children, women and the elderly in a household becoming the most vulnerable. ...special attention should be paid to the aspects of gender." For example, in the Pacific Islands and coastal areas of Asia women are strongly engaged in subsistence fishing as well as collection of food in local habitats. These habitats, such as mangroves, seagrass beds, and lagoons are all being negatively influenced by a changing climate, creating barriers in the direct work of women which then ripple out to their community." Bee-Earthy (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

References