Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New-ish article to check out

Hey everyone, I just thought I'd pop by and say that Women's Media Center seems like an interesting new-ish article relevant to the project, and that it needs some love and care to remove any possible promotional tone or bad style. Thanks, Steven Walling 06:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvasing at antimisandry.com

I was this close to posting a note here last week that the feminism articles seemed to be under some kind of coordinated assault. Since I couldn't find any evidence, however, I didn't say anything. It appears, however, that there was a thread posted at antimisandry.com encouraging readers to push anti-feminist POV on Wikipedia: http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/fight-wikipedia-page-about-feminism-help-needed-38569.html

The thread seems to have died out and all the POV-pushing that I was aware of has been dealt with effectively. I would encourage everyone to review their watchlists from last week and make sure that nothing slipped through the cracks. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This post is especially troubling:

"The best technique would be not to waste too much time on high profile, high traffic and obvious feminism articles and instead highlight misandry and add the truth in other ways. There are only so many man haters out there and they aren't all capable of editing Wikipedia, so they'll only be monitoring a fairly limited number of pages. Also their censorship is going to be quite a time consuming task and there are only so many hours in a day. If someone is confronting feminists with the truth in an article then that means the feminist will have to attempt to justify their censorship. Arguments can get quite complicated and they will have to search for and quote material backing up their point and this all takes time. Therefore even if your Wikipedia edit fails you've at least stopped a misandrist from posting bullshit somewhere else or censoring other embarrassing material."

In other words, go troll feminism articles so that you consume all of the legitimate editors time and energy. Kaldari (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could this edit be a part of this? --Aronoel (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, although the Men's Rights Movement seems to be quite active on Wikipedia with or without canvassing. It would probably be worth keeping an eye on that user's contribs to check for evidence of sockpuppetry, although right now they only have a single edit. Kaldari (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree on some articles it's hard to tell. In the current state of play its more likely that edits to this project page or other feminism related pages were targeted but right now there are about 6 sysops with eyes on this so the problem will likely die down but not go away =/ --Cailil ^talk 21:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see they've taken down the posting. See when Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout is appropriate for editors found actively actualizing that nonsense. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

More canvasing at antimisandry.com

This time, the target seems to be the article misandry. Four days ago, a call for the "mates" to "stop by Wiki" was posted on antimisandry.com. They've been busy deleting many many similar entries (like the one already pointed out above where they urge their mates to stop by the feminism article to support specific edits). But you can still find the thread if you just google "Mates stop by Wiki if you can:" http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=mates+please+stop+by+wiki+of+you+can&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=36aafe62ca039844 Here a variation of the post by BobV01 which hasn't been deleted yet: http://antimisandry.com/priority-news/wiki-image-perception-38712-post252258.html#post252258

Take a look at the article misandry. There was a push back in February and lots of original research (entire section "misandry and the presumption of male guilt") was inserted in the article with sources like (you know, don't you?) antimisandry.com [1] and wikipedia [2]. Similar picture on the talk page: User:BobV01 posts a link to antimisandry.com [3], and an IP comes along to rant about "preferential treatment of women" and the role the "feminist" Wiki pages played in said treatment [4]...

Please help remove the original research from the article misandry or help find sources to keep it. Also, any suggestions about what to do with BobV01? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I do think that women get preferential treatment in some sectors, including on wikipedia. Witness blatantly unsupported claim of 66% of work done by women, still defended by female/ pro-feminist editors at wikipedia. Basically defending privilege (the privilege to have unsupported claims maintained on UN/ NGO websites.) Can you really blame people for being angry/ frustrated? Liberation3 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberation3, are you also 175.100.127.94? --Aronoel (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Women in the workforce

This article is in desperate need of help. It's rated as high importance for this project, so hopefully some will be willing to work on it. Lara 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Women's participation in different occupations" section needs to be converted into a navigation template (preferably footer style). Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's Hockey task force

Bonjour à tous, Hello Everybody, that think you of the eventuality of future a women's hockey task force ? Your ideas, opinions, criticisms and advices are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Thanks, merci, תודה --Geneviève (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Catalyst

We could use an article about Catalyst; You can also gain access to substantial materials by joining Catalyst. I think it might be a good idea if the Wikimedia Foundation joined and supported it also. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Catalyst in the news" User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Glass Ceiling

I found an article that has been deemed too feminist but I think in order for people to realize exactly what feminism is that it should be looked at by the feminism WikiProject. The Wikipedia page is the Glass ceiling. I don’t know if people really understand that the glass ceiling is just a metaphor and not a literal barrier that needs to be overcome. I want discuss the difficulties women face through the entire process of looking for a job all the way until they retire because it seems as though the glass ceiling only gets worse as women age. The age gap adds a factor to the gender gap that makes over coming the glass ceiling very difficult. The definition that is currently on the page has been updated to encompass everyone that is being discriminated against in the workplace and not just women. I am proposing that a section on only women in the workplace be added since it historically started as a definition of women only. Any suggestions or comments to help me out? Clwilson91 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source which addresses the question "THE GLASS CEILING EFFECT" "The popular notion of glass ceiling effects implies that gender (or other) disadvantages are stronger at the top of the hierarchy than at lower levels and that these disadvantages become worse later in a person's career. We define four specific criteria that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists. Using random effects models and data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we examine gender and race inequalities at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of white male earnings. We find evidence of a glass ceiling for women, but racial inequalities among men do not follow a similar pattern. Thus, we should not describe all systems of differential work rewards as "glass ceilings." They appear to be a distinctively gender phenomenon." User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised when I looked at it to see that the concept had seemingly been applied to nearly every group that is discriminated against when I had understood the term to apply generally to women. The question is whether there are reliable sources which support the broader use; that is something to find out about; how is the term being used, in academic or journalistic sources? I think a strong section on women breaking into executive positions would improve the article. That was what I thought the term referred to, the archetype being the executive secretary, highly skilled and competent yet still locked into a lower caste and not considered for an actual executive position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask what class project this is related to? I'm just curious as we seem to have a lot of people showing up here all the sudden :) Is there a page about the project somewhere? Is it Robin Kelley's Women and Human Rights class at Georgetown or a different one? Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We are a class on Poverty, Gender, and Human Development at Rice University. The reason you have noticed a lot of recent activity is that adding to the WikiProjects is a step in our process that is due tonight. It is assigned by our Professor so there is not a page on it any where.Clwilson91 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Question (I hope it's not too OT): Is it ok for me to delete this very old, very offensive unsigned comment made by an IP to the glass ceiling talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glass_ceiling&diff=374995045&oldid=367543187 Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can definitely delete stuff like this per Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction #2. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt also check this policy page Wikipedia:Talk_page. Also, when there is a lot of old stuff on a page you can archive it, after oking with talk page first. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Female Factor

A topic, which may be considered as a series, in The New York Times and The International Herald-Tribune: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/world/series/the_female_factor/index.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Belizean Grove

Belizean Grove might make an article, see "A Club for the Women Atop the Ladder" article by Pamela Ryckman in The New York Times April 2, 2011

College campus violence against women

Is there anything on this? Anywhere? - Lazer Stein (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is Campus rape, but that article is in poor shape. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual harassment in education is probably where this should go, although it will support an article of its own. We did one on the Air Force Academy, 2003 United States Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal, and on the military in general, Sexual assault in the United States military, several years ago but this is actually something quite different; it's not rape or assault so much as a hostile climate, although that was certainly present at the military academies. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the NPR article Russlynn Ali (Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education) used the phrases "hostile environment" and "hostile environment and discrimination" in meaningful ways. This might support an article if the concept is in, or comes into, general use. This seems to be the case, based on the NPR piece, but we need to find in use in a government document, although its extensive use the media in connection with the Yale charges has probably introduced the concept into the language. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We have this: Hostile work environment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What seems to be the latest official policy guideline is at "Sexual Harassment Guidance"

In order to give rise to a complaint under Title IX, sexual harassment must be sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it adversely affects a student's education or creates a hostile or abusive educational environment. For a one-time incident to rise to the level of harassment, it must be severe.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also this from 1997. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the same as above, "Sexual Harassment Guidance". User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The pamphlet: "Sexual Harassment: It's Not Academic" html or PDF, paper copy can be ordered. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual harassment also occurs when a teacher, school employee,

other student, or third party creates a hostile environment that is sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student's ability to

participate in or benefit from the school's program.

Thus this material should probably be a section in sexual harassment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It is, in two sections, but Hostile environment sexual harassment, which is cited as a "main" article, does not contain material about educational environments. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Would there be a way to create a newer standalone article that would largely encompass practices such as that which have been discussed at Yale (and thankfully, largely in an academic tone that lends itself to broader discussion within the context of a Wikipedia article?) Our article on Sexual harassment in education is more or less a disambiguation page, and Sexual harassment in education in the United States has a large focus on K-12 education more so than university. Also, one might argue the Greek life setting of the Yale incident was not all that "education", especially because my understanding is that the offending organization was not a registered campus organization. I think this clearly needs to go somewhere, I'm just not sure where. Kansan (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Add information about the Yale complaint to the other articles, but also create a main article about that incident itself. It received national news coverage and is thus notable, it might be titled, 2011 Yale sexual harassment complaint but make up the best title you can think of. Yale is rather similar to the military academies, one expects more from the men, although Yale students are not subject to military discipline. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Feminism sidebar picture

Could people comment on the picture at Template:Feminism sidebar? Also, if anyone has better ideas for the sidebar's picture that would be great. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rape#Definition of rape / sexual assault

Opinions are needed. The discussion is about whether or not the articles should be merged/whether or not the Rape article should exist. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Domestic violence and pregnancy in need of rescue

Domestic violence and pregnancy has been nominated for deletion. It mostly just needs a lead clean-up and some NPOV tweaking. Anyone want to help? Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion closed as keep. The article could still use work, but what article couldn't. Danger (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please contribute

Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle#Initial post. HairyWombat 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So apparently removing crude humor about vaginas now requires consensus, while all other vandalism can be deleted on sight. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder - Wikipedia:Civil#Identifying_incivility: (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I tried deleting it twice and was reverted. Perhaps others could share their views. (Click "show" next to "Much ado about nothing.") Kaldari (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that arguing on an out of the way page is less useful than taking the issue to a centralized place, like the talk page guidelines discussion page, which seems to be what's actually at issue (whether offensive comments should be removed). That's why I hatted the discussion in the first place. --Danger (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've opened discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Iris Wedgwood: Should women simply be merged into the lives of their husbands and children?

I've suggested that Iris Wedgwood simply be merged into the lives of her husband and children-- our notability guidelines have no place for an achievement such as hers :) Feel free to chime in on this one ... Trilliumz (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Awatef Rasheed

Recently created article (and an autobiography). Needs a lot of clean up and I suspect it may have trouble (at least in its current state) passing the notability guidelines. Members familiar with the area may be able to help. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Rape culture

Hello e'erybody,

The rape culture page has come under fairly intense scrutiny lately (this isn't necessarily a bad thing). Since it's important to discuss violence against women on that page w/r/t rape culture (duh), and since editors doubt the existence of rape culture (or require more neutrality), it's become difficult to edit. Has anyone been following the recent case in NYC, where two cops were complicit in the rape of a drunk woman, yet were acquitted? And there's a good op-ed here. I guess I'm asking to keep your eyes open for more sources that discuss the case through the lens of an overarching culture of violence/obfuscation of violence, or to just help edit the page. If this is the wrong spot to post this, please let me know. --Lazer Stein (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, you are in the right place yes. I've commented at the talkpage and will watch the article for any flare-ups. Skomorokh 15:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Input sought

I've made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Creative professionals guidelines pertaining to notability criteria for writers (though visual artists are also at issue). I think members of this project could bring valuable perspectives to the discussion. I was in part prompted to make the comment because of AfD notices on this page, which I watch though I'm not a member. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide view in Feminism

I am having some trouble with adding a worldwide view to the history section of Feminism, if anyone can comment on the discussion at Talk:Feminism#History section needs worldwide view it would be really appreciated. Thanks --Aronoel (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I couldn't find that section, is it still there? I just added a talk section to discuss the lack of a worldview in Feminism#Men_and_masculinity. Elements of this section imply that feminism is misandry. Can anyone else comment over there? Roger6r (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Retiring from Wikipedia

When I first joined Wikipedia, I did it for the women hockey. It in its own way, became writing therapy for me in the sense that I was able to write about what I loved. Wikipedia allowed me to sort out parts of my life that I needed to deal with ( I am a former junior player of hockey which stopped because of a grave wound in 2009)

There are a lot of users who I worked that I would like to thank for their assistance: Ottawa4ever, Maple Leaf, LauraHale and Kaldari . For those other users whose names I failed to mention, thanks you.

To all women users, good luck and courage on Wikipedia. This is a man's world. --Geneviève (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Or consider taking a break. I have been from most contentious articles anyway - (though still haven't been getting much writing done off wiki ;-(. But one day the itch to get in there will return, and perhaps yours will too! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Genevieve, there are those who would like us to think this is a man's world, but it is, and always has been, a person's world. Roger6r (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Geneviève, I've seen your contributions time and time again. Thank you for all your work, and I hope you'll decide to come back someday. You'll be much missed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Very much missed. Its very sad people are continually being driven off wiki, dispite a clear need for them to be here. This will probably only continue to worsen with others. Wikipedia is like a certain political party in power for years; head buried in the sand saying nothings wrong, nothing needs to be done to attract people over, we'll keep on truckin like everythings going to be ok......and then comes the future, opps where did all our supporters go?cricket noise Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Femininity

More opinions are needed at femininity if anyone is interested. Thanks--Aronoel (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I added to your discussion on the talk page section "Stereotype." I would like the intro to declare the article is explicitly about the feminine stereotype if that is what is being defended. Also, there needs to be references for the stereotypes that are there, especially in the lead. Roger6r (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'd be interested in your input on my recent addition to the talk for changing the Main Picture. Roger6r (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am adding "Computer Programming" to the list of traditionally feminine occupations because the first modern computer programmers were women. Please join the discussion. Roger6r (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Carole Berry

Writer of mysteries about office temp workers. How could temp girls be notable when they're just cheap labor here today, gone tomorrow? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Berry Trilliumz (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Result was keep but needs more work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rectifying an old double standard

Hello. Anybody here interested in helping at Talk:Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.#Rectifying_an_old_double_standard is welcome to. I quote from my note there. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hi there. I was in sixth grade when JFK died, so I'm old enough to be somewhat shocked that I never learned about his sister Rosemary until now. I would like to work with the editors of this article to place one cited sentence in the lead. I'm prepared to read any books you think are needed in order to accomplish that. I will try to be careful of Joseph's reputation and take it easy, but what happened to his daughter is almost unbelievable to me today. Is anybody else willing to help?

Our article about her brother says he was promiscuous and said to Harold Macmillan, "I wonder how it is for you, Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches." The Associated Press quote from her obituary, "Rosemary was a woman, and there was a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace,” author Laurence Leamer wrote in an unauthorized Kennedy biography called The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family. The AP obituary, "But as she got older, her father worried that his daughter's mild condition would lead her into situations that could damage the family's reputation." So we appear to have a somewhat slow but otherwise normal female whose only fault was that she was a female. It might take me a year to do it correctly and without original research, but one sentence needs to be here. Thank you for your time. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Two users came to the rescue, one recommending a book and another suggesting (and using) a source. I need to read that book now. Anyway, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Project scope

Should articles like Rape during the occupation of Germany fall under the scope of this Wiki-project? If so, then perhaps the Wikiproject banner could be placed on the article talkpage. --Martin (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the banner plus assessment. Kaldari (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the banner to Misogyny (really needs it, be careful not to get banned fixing it), Femininity, Gender Roles (Should be renamed Gender Stereotypes), and Misandry (need to bust up the misconception that misandry is feminism). Roger6r (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Consciousness raising

I just stumbled across this article today and it isn't bannered with WikiProject Feminism. Should it be? Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, cool subject. I'd like to create an article on Kathie Sarachild since one doesn't exist yet. Does anyone want to collaborate on this? Roger6r (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Misogyny is unbalanced

The Misogyny page fails to present a worldview. I have tagged the Mythology subsection as unbalanced. Other sections could use attention as well. Please join the talk page. HypatiaX (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added an original research tag to the Philosophy section of Misogyny. If you have any input, please join in at Talk:Misogyny#Alleged_misogynists_original_research. HypatiaX (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

Hello!

I have been accused of "trolling" because of objecting to some statements first about a female editor "courting the Wikipedia fraternity" and "screaming into her tea cloth" and then about some remarks about me. Please look at my talk page.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sex and gender distinction

Could someone help explain the sex and gender distinction in the discussion at Talk:Femininity#Lead discussion? Thanks --Aronoel (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - one month trial

Check it out and see if useful for this project. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP and complainants in rape cases: Publicizing names

There is a discussion of WP:BLP and names of rape victims at my talk page, which was sparked by my deletion of the name of one of Julian Assange's complainants from the talk page of CounterPunch.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Publicizing the name of victims is now discussed at the WP:BLP noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender apartheid an analogy??

See discussion I started at Talk:Gender_apartheid#Apartheid_analogy. (Note the article has been used for Islam bashing and I do intend to cut down that section quite a bit, especially since there already is another article specifically about Islam.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:African American Women and Category:African American women in politics

This is a notice to tell you that Category:African American women and Category:African American women in politics have been nominated for deletion. The discussions are found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_15#Category:African_American_women_in_politics and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_16#Category:African_American_women. --LauraHale (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Q on Humanities RefDesk re legal majority for women in the UK

I tried to answer it, but don't have the info. Any historians around? Or lawyers? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Using Gender apartheid as a coatrack

In Gender apartheid article, have been paring back the two massive sections on "gender apartheid" and Islam for last couple months and now getting some push back so would appreciate some input there. Most recent diff which probably will be reverted. There already is a Sex segregation in Islam article.

So it looks like the excessive material - including lots of block quotes which I've shortened and incorporated into paragraphs - are an attempt by some past editors to use the serious topic of "gender apartheid" as a coatrack to support duplicative and repetive attacks on Muslims per se. As a feminist, I have a problem with that.

Don't worry, the section is still huge compared to rest of the article. To the extent lead should almost say that it's used primarily to describe Muslims, but even then the article Sex segregation in Islam should be the main article. Note that a couple months ago I added some other uses of the term. Just did another books.google search and found a few new things to add as well. Feel free to add other uses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the offending editor was exposed by others as a sockpuppet of AFolkSingersBeard and reverted his changes so it now has a balanced presentation of this important feminist topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Women's issues constantly up for deletion

I've recently been making categories for women of color on Wiki, which has caused a lot of hubub.... Recently an article that I found really informative was deleted without my knowing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Native_American_women This list really helped me in my research--there isn't even a history for me to create a category from this. I really want to contribute to WP, but I don't understand why people are making it so hard by saying that women's issues don't matter. I can see why creating a category would be better for the issue, but this has seemed to be rather systematic of women's issues since I've become more active here. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One person wrote at the AfD page: don't see this as a particularly notable intersection, Native American Women Writers, Artists etc. would be fine I see Category:Female Native American leaders and Category:Native American women in warfare do exist. You could challenge the deletion and announce it here, but people should read the arguments before opining. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia, therefore doesn't exist

I've just created an article for Margaret Kelly (civil servant), fl. 1911. What spurred me was not just her interesting story -- first female director of the US Mint, highest paid female government official -- but the comment by the person who brought her to light, to the effect that a historical character without a Wikipedia article doesn't really exist:

She sounds like a great role model for women trying to break the glass ceiling. And yet, I can find almost no other mention of her online. No Wikipedia entry. Nothing. History is very strange sometimes.[5]

Here's the pdf interview from 1911: "A Talk with Miss Margaret Kelly, Director of the U.S Mint" So -- anyone want to flesh out Ms Kelly? And is there a list of could-be-notable-but-not-yet-on-Wikipedia? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrt, could-be-notable-not-yet-on-Wikipedia, we have WP:Missing articles and WP:Requested articles. Nothing specific to feminism though, as far as I know. --Danger (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many great women who are not on WP, and it shocks me that they don't have their own pages. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can generate some lists, or provide sources for generating such lists, we can start the process of creating those articles. See, for example, the List of female scientists before the 21st century and List of female mathematicians for previous work on providing kicking-off points for article creation. This Google search provides other examples of similar lists.

See also User:The Anome/Notable women lists for some resources that might help. -- The Anome (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(Update: I've made a quick list at User:The Anome/Find-A-Grave famous people filtered by gender to try the automated approach. Sidenote: The ratio in the original list of as-yet-uncreated articles was 1619 women to 8384 men.) -- The Anome (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have recently been contributing a lot of research to women of color issues, and these were some of the women I'm concerned with not having articles of their own. Right now I'm writing broad articles on the issues, but I suppose eventually I will start writing short biographical articles. Is there anyway I can add these women to a database of women without articles? Here are the articles I have written so far: African American women in politics, Hispanic and Latino American women in journalism. Particularly in the journalism article are quite a few redlinks. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do would be to create an articles-wanted list in project space first -- perhaps with some title like Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Notable women articles for creation -- and when we have a start on that, see what can be done with it later. -- The Anome (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I added to the requested articles, but it's such a large list it seems they'd get lost, so that sounds like a really good idea. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing Women's categories to "Female" categories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_1#.22Women.22_categories I felt this would be of relevance here, just in case any women here take issue to the term "female." I do know feminists who do not like this word due to a dehumanizing effect, and I don't feel the change is a good idea because of that. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup request

I hope this is the place to request a female article for cleanup. Women and governance is in need of a rewrite (it has a kind-of bad flow when reading it) or clarification. I hope too that someone will see that this article needs editing. --Turn685 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler article

There's currently a prolonged content dispute taking place at the article for Phyllis Chesler. I'd appreciate it if some other people could look this over. CJCurrie (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Male feminists

I have created this category and categorized it with a few articles. I bring attention to it here for all interested and knowledgeable to add more. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice category. I added John Stoltenberg‎. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is great. I'll be can adding a few in there. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated "grow a pair" sexism: Testical cancer survivor

Hi sisters and brothers and fellow somewhat ambiguous persons,

1. At an ANI about me, an editor that an administrator "grow a pair" and block me.

My reply requested that the editor avoid sexist terminology like "grow a pair", particularly when addressing editors (me) displaying the Livestrong userbox (about testicle cancer). The sexist remark was not redacted, and nobody else objected the sexism.

1. The administrator who had closed yesterday's ANI, removing the Livestrong (testicle-cancer survivor) user-box in a special and final edit , repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard.
2. Then an arbcom administrator repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard.

None of these remarks have been redacted, and nobody else has objected to them. After I wrote "Nobody gives a shit about your gonads" in response to the last "grow a pair", there has been another suggestion of blocking me.

I am not a saint. The ANI arose mostly because of my clean-ups of articles on American socialism. At my worst, I had firmly criticized an edit describing the majority of the Socialist Party of America (includingMichael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, Sandra Feldman, Rachelle Horowitz, etc.) as "democratic centralist (Leninist)"; this edit had removed "Stalinist" before "Stalinist democratic-centralism" from an unreliable source.I also asked a fellow who kept misunderstanding what I wrote whether he had poor vision, like myself.

However, whatever my faults, I do not deserve the last two repeated, consciously sexist pokes, at least one of which was a deliberate baiting.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

While removing the user box was probably appropriate, the obvious jokes by the admins were not. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators#Disputes_or_complaints which says: In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available. WP:Wikiquette might be a place to complain. Or just tell them that you left a complaint here and maybe they'll feel somewhat chided. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carol,

Thanks for your support and suggestions. I have had a tough weekend and start of a week with the ANI/AN thread, some legitimate but a lot imho not, and I was tired of facing antagonism.

Soon after I wrote the complaint to them on AN, I started to receive messages of support and apologies (even from people who had not said the "grow a pair"), which was deeply appreciated.

A true hero of Wikipedia is Kaldari, who has now twice appeared and forced people to deal with sexism. I know the traditional technique for stopping sexist behavior: Turn and face the jerk with squared sholdiers, firmly wag the finger once into a pointing position, and firmly state "Stop that! Nobody likes to be treated like that"; the technique's supposed to rekindle fear/respect of maternal authority. Kaldari is the only one who can do that in Wiki-text! She stopped all the denial and caused some nervous and hopefully thoughtful silence simply by stating that a female editor "was courting the WP fraternity" was sexist.

I have been glad to accept the apologies from the two administrators. The guy who closed (in good faith) the ANI (and had to remove the box) made an especially heartfelt apology (and had been helpful and kind the previous day). The ArbCom member's personality was known to me, and (having had received kind messages in between) I had already guessed that she had tried to defuse a tense AN by bending her gender a bit. The first fellow who started the phrase cannot be blamed for not stalking my user page and clicking all the buttons, but I hope he'll try to avoid sexist phrasing a bit more in the future. So I consider the incident closed.

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiChix Lunch Summary from Wikimania

Hi everyone - this past week the WikiChix Lunch took place at Wikimania 2011. I have written a summary for those who are interested. :) WikiChix Lunch 2011 SarahStierch (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

NOW article

Hi everyone. I posted on the National Organization of Women talk page about the lack of content related to the more "controversial" (ha!) aspects of the organization. There is little to no mention of the early homophobia within the organization, their first director, Dolores Alexander (who I am writing a start article for right now, so hopefully this will be blue shortly), and while it reads neutral, the majority of the content is from the NOW website, and the chronology, while very sexy, lacks citation. I have created a list of some starting point resources, and I'd like to work with some folks to perhaps make the article bigger, more broader and so forth. Talk:National_Organization_for_Women#Lack_of_controversy...surprises_me is where I started the conversation. I do hope there is some interest here. :) SarahStierch (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

More stats and research

Lots of new stats and research discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-15/Women and Wikipedia. One interesting stat related to feminism: 91% of the edits to the article Feminism by registered users are by men (mostly from the United States). Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation - RfC

People here may be interested to know about a RfC which is currently active :-

Female genital mutilation - RfC

I came across this by chance today. There is a discussion going on around whether or not it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use the term "female genital mutilation" (FGM). Some people think it would be preferable to use the term "female genital cutting" (FGC) on the grounds that this would be more neutral. They say that "mutilation" is POV. They acknowledge that the vast majority of academics use the term FGM, but they argue that the lack of neutrality in the term FGM outweighs this consideration.

I may be wrong, but I acquired the impression that the entire group of people taking part in the discussion were men. Rubywine . talk 06:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Put in my two cents. Looks like the consensus is going to be at FGM. Really disturbing that this argument even has to be had. SarahStierch (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put in the argument, as you will see, that cutting is a type of mutilation. I don't think they quite get that. Also cutting could imply that a woman has done it to herself (whether through self injury, accidental, or body art).--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points. I feel like it also downplays the horrific nature of FGM. SarahStierch (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But that's not me being "neutral" towards a "neutral subject" :P SarahStierch (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is in a disgraceful state and really should not have a class B grading from this project. Please reconsider that grading. I've left some notes in Talk:Female genital mutilation#Sections needing work and missing sections.

Is there anyone else who'd like to help me work on improving the article? I am very short of time this week and can't start until next week. Rubywine . talk 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll help with it, since i know a quite a bit about it. I was a psyc student so fortunately I have experience with summing up these sort of studies too. I'm just staying far from the talk page because some of those people trigger my anger just a bit too much.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is my summary of the 1989 article. I will add the newer articles to it later. But I would like to note, and I am sure you are aware, 1989 is considered very outdated for this sort of information. Most scientists and researchers will only consider research within the past 10 years. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Henrietta. That's a brilliant new section you've written which properly represents the study. I've only just seen it. Yes 1989 is outdated but Lightfoot-Klein is a very important study which started her 30 years of work against FGM (see her website, books and articles)[6]. It's also the best possible defence against allegations of bias, and future restorations of bad material, if we correctly cite studies which have been so badly misrepresented, as you have done today, instead of deleting them from the article. It makes my blood boil that Lightfoot-Klein's work has been used to promote the idea that women with FGM are not really sexually damaged. I think she deserves an apology. Rubywine . talk 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that Jakew takes quotes out of context and uses them the way he wants to. Also, and I don't mean for this to sound presumptious, but a lot of people who haven't read studies a lot or been trained on how to read them probably would do a very bad job on summarizing them. I had to learn how to do it in school myself so I can't imagine what a person who doesn't read scientific studies regularly would do when summing it up, but it would probably be a lot like what happened here.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Jakew certainly does do that, and yes, papers like Lightfoot-Klein are hard to summarise. But if you think that was hard, Abusharaf was a densely written jungle of prose. SonicYouth sent me a PDF (there must be library restrictions that stopped her posting a link). I had to quote large sections from it on the talk page because I was told I needed to explain why the sentence I deleted misquoted and misrepresented the source, and I don't have a month to write a summary. Rubywine . talk 16:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I did quite a bit of work to remove bias and he added more sources in to put his bias back in... Sigh.... I think this will become an edit war if we are not careful. I will have to clean up his mess later.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Netball GA nomination

As some of you may know, the article netball (a popular women's sport outside of the U.S.) has had a long and sordid history on Wikipedia (even spawning a Request for Arbitration at one point). Last month it was officially delisted as a Good Article. Rather than letting it languish, several editors have attempted to improve the article since then and it has now been renominated for Good Article assessment. If anyone with GA assessment experience has an interest, it is currently open to be claimed. It would also be helpful to have extra eyes give it a good copy-editing, if anyone has time. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It failed again, so please feel free to take a look at the article again. The reviewer left some vague comments as to why it did not pass. Thanks in advance! :) SarahStierch (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Women in Iraq" and "Women's rights in Iraq" articles

I just posted an article "Women in Iraq" and then discovered that there's already an article "Women's rights in Iraq".

They're both longish with lots of sources. In looking at both of them, I'd like to do some cross-editing. "Women in Iraq" should be more broad, so I'd like to cut and past the historical info from "Women's rights in Iraq" into "Women in Iraq".

Then, I would like to take a lot of the info on women's rights organizations from "Women in Iraq" and cut and paste it into "Women's rights in Iraq".

Make sense?

OttawaAC (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Creating new categories for "Women's Organizations"

I see a need to have some categories created (some of these categories already exist on the other language Wikipedias):

* Women's organizations ..............with sub-categories:

• • Women's rights organizations
  • Women's athletic organizations
  • Women's charitable organizations
  • Women's professional organizations
  • Women's parenting organizations
  • Women's education organizations
  • Women's recreation organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttawaAC (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do I request that someone else do this, like an editor? Or do I just go ahead and create them? (And if so, how would I do that?) Thanks.

OttawaAC (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization. And probably could to put at least a half dozen organizations under each category to get the ball rolling. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Ok, I looked around and found Category:Women's_organizations ... It was hidden within Category:Organizations by membership ... which to me is a redundant navigational directory.

Organizations are also in Categories by subject. Including "Organization by membership" , which as a navigational tool, is useless, it just sends users down a useless path (like how I got lost).

Another redundant navigating tool is "Lists of Organizations" which drills down to more lists, and lists of lists, and lists of lists of lists.... completely redundant navigation mess, because there are Categories already for organizations. Why is there any need for Lists of Organizations, on top of Categories for Organizations? Does Wikipedia really need a list of all zillion organizations in a given country, city, etc.?

That's more a general comment than a Feminism-related comment though. I will copy and paste my little rant over to the Community at large forum (thereby making it redundant? lol) OttawaAC (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative gender systems

A suggestion has been made for merging "alternative gender systems" with "gender systems." No similar suggestion is made for merging a category like "alternative music" with "music". ˜˜˜˜laprofe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprofre (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Link: Alternative gender systems. Neither article is great at the moment; they need some major cleanup. GS is 24.2 kb and AGS is 11.1 kb, so a straight content merge (before any cleanup or expansion) would put the resulting article at 35 kb - the point where you start to consider breaking up a larger article anyway. If anything, some GS content needs to be under AGS. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

LATER: Carolmooredc, I did not put the link on the main project page; that was Laprofre. My edit was merely fixing the redlink; you're free to remove the whole link if you wish. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The merge actually happened back in June following consensus on the talk page; Laprofre reverted it 14 minutes before posting here. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Another awesome woman's article up for deletion

I love how you start to see the same names pop up of deletionists nominating women's articles. :P Really cool story about a woman who changed the face of physics! Elizabeth Rauscher SarahStierch (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all. The same people (albeit different from these) also pop up to delete women's categories.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Horrendously they will put this up for deletion but this article on Ashkenazi intelligence is kept. I nominated it and it was speedily kept because three nominations for deletes went on three years ago. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a polite question on their talk pages about why they keep doing that might make them more conscious of their bias. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I find the "notability" guidelines quite murky, myself. I suppose it's questionable how exceptional this person's career achievements have been; maybe it would just be a matter of re-framing her biographical information. I don't know enough about her field, though. I saw that she won an award, so I looked for information on the organization that gave out the award -- they're kind of fringe, but while looking around, I came across this biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Benor

Daniel I. Benor's biography is quasi-spam about a "wholistic" healer/motivational speaker (not holistic healer, but wholistic healer....) The talk page for that article is full of comments, where at least one editor gives the poster some advice on improving the article, etc., but there's no attempt to delete it. Huh? So what are the standards? Seems a bit arbitrary.

To give the editor in the Elizabeth Rauscher case the benefit of the doubt, I'm guessing that they are trying to stop every academic, fringe group founder, etc., on the face of the earth from trying to add a biography to Wikipedia to pad their resume, so maybe the criteria for establishing notability could be clearer. OttawaAC (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I'm p*****. I posted a biography on a First Lady of Cote d'Ivoire (a country in Africa). She was assassinated with her husband a few years ago. Anyway, it was tagged for speedy deletion by one editor, then changed to a redirect to the biography of her husband by another editor. WHAT? There are numerous articles on Wikipedia for First Ladies of many other countries. What's wrong with Cote d'Ivoire First Ladies? Are they not as notable as the First Ladies of the State of Kentucky? (There are five biographies on Wikipedia for First Ladies from Kentucky. I don't know if any of them were assassinated or not, though...)

The nuttiness is enough to sting your brain. This is an uphill battle all the way. OttawaAC (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As others have noted elsewheres, some guys get their jollies getting articles deleted; another notch in their sorry gun, evidently. Maybe we need some limitation on the number of articles an individual editor can nominate for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or WP:AfD, whichever is most abused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

-- At least I got the article on the Ivorian First Lady brought back from the brink by saying something to the editor. It's staying. All's well, for now! OttawaAC (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Donation of three months' access to Feminist Economics

Routledge has kindly offered three months' free online access to Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, for up to 15 Wikimedians. The sign-up sheet is here, and will open at 22:00 UTC, Monday, August 29.

Please pass the word along to anyone you know who might be interested, particularly people on projects other than the English Wikipedia. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the editor of Feminist Economics, Diana Strassmann, uses Wikipedia in one of the courses she teaches. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No policy for age checks on sexually explicit photos

Apparently WP has no policy on this sort of stuff. So these photos we're talking about above? We don't even know if these are kids or adults. And while someone might say, hey that vagina looks like a woman's vagina (???) no one knows. Teenagers going though puberty look different and some appear like adults. To me this is not an issue of getting all sexual images off WP or keeping minors from viewing them. It's keeping child porn off of WP. I brought this up at the Village Pump, and they did not seem to get the point that this is about child porn, not getting perceived pornographic pics off Wikipedia entirely. I don't care what adults do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I've put a note on SlimVirgin's talk page. I'm hoping she'll be able to help. Rubywine . talk 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ruby and Henrietta, I know there have been discussions about these issues for a long time, but I haven't taken part in them myself because they are so frustrating. I'm therefore not up to speed. My own concern has always been whether the fully informed consent of the subject has been obtained, even for images of apparently adult women. If not, what can a woman do if she sees an image of herself on Wikipedia—write to OTRS and ask them to take down the image of her body parts? The onus should not be on the subject to sort this out, but on the uploader. There are discussions here on Commons that might get you headed in the right direction. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim, thanks for the link to the right discussion forum! Of course you're right, the consent of an adult subject is an important issue. It's violating the subject's privacy if there's no consent and I agree with everything you said. In regard to our immediate concern though, in terms of cutting through objections and prevarications, I'm hoping that a focus on the need to exclude potential child pornography for legal reasons might meet with some success. There must be a lawyer somewhere in WMF. Henrietta, do you want to start the topic there or shall I? Rubywine . talk 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are all the discussions for those interested:

• w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Does_WP_have_a_policy_for_sexually_explicit_photos.3F
• w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policies_against_possible_child_porn
• Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Release_form_for_sexual_images_as_mitigation_against_child_pornography -- Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that further discussion is directed to Commons, here:

Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Release_form_for_sexual_images_as_mitigation_against_child_pornography

The Commons discussion includes links to all four discussions on Wikipedia. Rubywine . talk 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FEMINISM gets a namecheck on Commons

A cross-post from Commons:

"Given that this issue is being orchestrated from en:WP:FEMINISM, what we have right here is probably the Wikipedia version of the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (NPR article on it). Sexual abuse hysteria is the place where all creeping censorship campaigns begin. Extransit (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)"

Henrietta gave these guys a link to Derailing for Dummies. The next thing they posted was 108 penis closeups, and now this. Looks like they thought it was a tutorial. Rubywine . talk 11:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this: Regardless of one's stance, there are so many fucking dumbasses who contribute to Commons, I'm just glad I never have to meet most of these people in person. SarahStierch (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Eric D Angell

New article Eric D Angell on a possible rapist who confessed in a "joke" in a comedy show; AfD here. The HuffPo has picked it up; it definitely warrants a section in rape culture but does it need its own article? Without a heavy number of reliable sources it's a major BLP vio; with them (monday papers, hopefully) it's passable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Article was deleted for BLP violations, which was probably fair. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Feminist Economics

Just a reminder that the sign-up sheet has opened for anyone interested in three months' free access to Feminist Economics. All members of the project are welcome. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

English Suffragettes

Would it perhaps be appropriate to have a category 'Suffragettes'? The term is distinct from Suffragists, at least in England.

--Johnny Cyprus (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Maybe Scartol would know. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Suffragettes" exists on Wikipedia as a standalone article.

The main article on Wikipedia for women's suffrage is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage From there, it breaks down into women's suffrage articles by country. There is also a separate article on Wikipedia for "Suffragettes" for the United States variety of female women's suffrage campaigners.

For the United Kingdom, the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom

That covers women's suffrage in the UK; as far as universal suffrage goes, and the history of movements to extend the UK voting rights to different classes of men, I'm not sure where you'd go to find that on Wikipedia.

Does that answer the question?

Hth.

OttawaAC (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed child abuse informational page on commons

[7]

These are already legal policies set forth by Wikimedia, so this is more of an informational page. I have proposed it at Commons and it's up for vote.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Henrietta, could you please amend the title at the Village Pump so it's 100% clear it's a proposed information page about an existing policy, and not a proposed policy. I think the first contributor had a point - it could go astray rather quickly unless that's clear. Rubywine . talk 20:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible bias in illustrating articles

I'm not a member of this project, though I'm active with the Women's History project, where the point that concerns me is probably outside scope.

Compare, if you would, the choice of illustration for penis to that of vagina. Both articles deal generally with the anatomy of animals and humans, but "penis" is illustrated with a quirky "selection of penises from different species" disembodied on parade at a museum (no image of a human penis), while "vagina" doesn't show a single example from an animal, only a closeup of a woman's spread vagina.

I'm not saying this represents any kind of conscious choice, and I have no plans to edit either article myself. Just an observation if anyone's interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a matter of choice, or a matter of biology. It's fairly simple to get a picture of either human genitalia, or of an animal penis (hell, there's a whole museum of em), but I suspect it's rather difficult to get a picture of an animal vagina. There is one picture of an animal vagina on Commons; it's a pretty disgusting picture of a prolapsed cow vagina. I'm not sure it'd add much to the article. I agree that there needs to be more species selection; I'm not sure I can pass judgement on where the problem arises. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh christ I cannot believe I looked at that cow vagina.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You've made a good point Cynwolfe. I think there are signs of bias, probably unconscious. I think both penis and vagina should show human genitalia but I'm not happy about the image in vagina. The hands in the image and the extreme spread of the vagina are unnecessary, and the caption doesn't mention that the pubic area is shaved. There are better images of the human vulva in clitoris and sex organ - which also contains a human penis. Regarding bias, the contrast between human female sexuality and human male sexuality is quite comical. Rubywine . talk 01:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That image has to be a porn picture. There is no other way. I cannot imagine any other time someone would spread a woman's labia like that other than for extreme penetration. Also, I'm not even sure if that is an adult, which really bothers me.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That didn't occur to me (the age question I mean) but it raises a serious issue. I'm surprised that Wikimedia accepts this type of image without a declaration of the subject's age. Rubywine . talk 02:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there's that, but there's a larger issue here: on porn websites they require for the ID of the individual whose picture was taken. (Don't ask how I know.) WP is not considered a porn site, but this is clearly porn. I mean, it's one of those things that you know it when you see it. I think I will be reporting this and trying to find a more suitable pic.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the picture with an illustration. We'll see how long that lasts. But this really calls into question a something WP has really overlooked. Just because a girl has pubic hair does not mean she's of age. Are these pictures being accounted for at all? I have no problem with penises or vaginas everywhere as long as we're all adults.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few images on commons where the subject's anatomy allows one to see the vaginal opening without spreading the labia manually, but they are either unlabeled or have non-English labels. I'm not sure how to make labels on images. I've added a few medical images to the article. --Danger (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. There is actually a separate human penis article, which must be why penis is basically unillustrated. Dicks are that important. There is no article dedicated to the genitals of female non-human animals. (I am reminded of the probably apocryphal story of male scientists baffled by the bizarre corkscrew shaped phalluses of some duck species until a female scientist had the bright idea to examine the oviducts of the females.) --Danger (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which prompts me to say that my point is mainly "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The greater difficulty of documenting animal vaginas is a point well taken; but it seems like a good encyclopedic goal to at least try to treat male/female, human/animal genitalia in a comparably informative manner. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Henrietta it looks as though you were right about it being porn. The original image (this one's got retouched skin tones; how tasteful) was uploaded to Commons by "Tracy and rick Anderson". Their other uploads are graphic images of fellatio. This side of Wikimedia is all a bit surprising to me I have to say. Rubywine . talk 02:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it was an adult only account or something--locked for viewing for non-users, and I have lost my flickr password so I assumed as much. Sadly, I've seen enough porn incidentally for one women to know what it looks like.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd never thought about age of consent in regard to these photos before. I'm fairly blasé about this kind of stuff, but this is a very serious question. How do we know that sexually explicit photos don't use minors? We don't require release forms, for instance. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that further discussion is directed to Commons, here:

Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Release_form_for_sexual_images_as_mitigation_against_child_pornography

The Commons discussion includes links to all four discussions on Wikipedia. Rubywine . talk 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is most definitely a bias in using nude or semi-nude women to illustrate Wikipedia articles. I've personally seen this debated at pregnancy, ochre, girl, sun tanning, femininity, and shorts just to name a few. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the discussion at pregnancy is still ongoing. Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added a comment. Rubywine . talk

And this is happening on Commons Village Pump as of today: Images depicting nude people and sex acts on Commons - enjoy. SarahStierch (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mathilde Vaerting

I've stubbed Mathilde Vaerting, but it would be great if someone with German could help and expand it.Dsp13 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't speak German but I've added a translation request tag to the article just in case it's helpful. Rubywine . talk 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Endorsing petition

I am going to start a petition due to the response at commons on the issue of age checks for sexually explicit photos. It seems many Wikipedians, even if they don't care about the child abuse aspect, don't care about the legal implications for Wikipedia (Many of them seem to not even know basic laws regarding porn distribution.), which has offices centered in Florida, USA. Being from the USA, I know our laws, and holding an excuse that WP does not have to follow age checks because it is not considered a porn site would not pass in any court. When you have suspected child porn on your server, you are considered of distributing porn. Therefore, I want to start a petition to raise awareness of the issue. I am asking the Feminist Project to endorse this petition. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We should probably also bring this up with legal at the Wikimedia Foundation. This needs to move beyond just "the people," IMHO. SarahStierch (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree definitely! I just didn't know where I should go to bring it up. Both Rubywine and I have been discussing it and no one seems to think it's an issue except for us and one other guy.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't gotten much of a response (except Sarah's above), but I believe based on other conversations here there won't be much of an upset if I say this is endorsed by the Feminist Project on the petition. I will also point out that I have been told due to Section 230 of US law, WP is exempt from monitoring of photos, but I will also say that Wikimedia is already self-monitored by users--copyright issues and such. I don't believe suggesting that we monitor for underage content is much of a hassle to ask for considering that copyrighted material is so easily monitored.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's like having a modeling release. I'm not opposed. I also hate the idea that we need it that badly, that there is that much "nudity" on Wikimedia? Again, I think we should at least hit up the legal team. I met with a few folks this past week at WMf, when I get home (this upcoming week) I'll investigate and we can write them (email me if you want?) just to see what they think. I just want to be post-vacation.....I have a lot of WP:Feminism talk messages to follow up on =) SarahStierch (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've kinda decided that this is sort of an uphill battle. Too many people are blase about it and just don't care. I guess it's better to let Wikimedia have problems when it comes rather than try to prevent it.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so anyone reading knows, we got an email from legal letting us know about their policy. Unfortunately this incident just goes to show how many people do not know about the legal policies of Wikipedia, and even if you are right, they will argue you to death. In any event, I think I'm going to create a page similar to this so people know about the policy and an incident like this does not happen again.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So we require photographs of recognizable individuals taken in a private place to have permission, but we do not require photographs of recognizable individual's privates to have permission. Further, even legally obtained images may be deleted due to "moral issues" (presumably unless the people in it are naked). Is that correct? --Danger (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, as someone who has worked in the photography industry (and even been dragged in front of a camera myself a few times), we have model releases. I don't know why "body parts" have to determine why permission should not be provided. If I was any person with my junk slapped up on Commons without know, I'd be rather pissed, it just makes sense to have a release. blarghhh..SarahStierch (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been concerned about this for a long time, but trying to do something about is like wading through whale blubber in a pair of flip-flops. The issue of age is one concern, but even ignoring that, we are asking that women who find someone has posted an inappropriate photograph of them must write to an anonymous person (possibly a teenage boy) at OTRS, and must say, perhaps providing her real name, "Excuse me, you have published a photograph of my vagina without my permission; please remove it." Does the woman then have to prove the image is of her? The mind boggles. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question but... how could someone prove it's them? It's not like a face where you can make a positive ID. Even putting aside the personality difficulties, the technical side would be tricky. This might be a very weird case where fair-use images (from a medical textbook or similar source) might be justified due to the thorny legal issues of free-use user-provided images. Someone could also put an email to the good folks at Scarleteen; they know their stuff (they recently published a series of (obviously legal) vulva images for an anatomical awareness campaign) and might be amenable to contributing some images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A procedure would be a good idea.

I'm not a lawyer.

A difficult case is where a woman recognizes a photo, her name is not attached, but the photo was by her now ex-boyfriend and if she says anything he could blackmail her by threatening to put her name on it, whereas if she says nothing she relies on him to stay silent or at least quiet enough that no one she deals with ever realizes what's happening. With an ex, that's probably unreliable.

On the other hand, once her name is attached, there's less risk to demanding its removal from Wikimedia properties.

Even if it does not violate laws on obscenity, it might violate laws on commercially using someone's likeness without their consent, a body of law in the U.S. (probably state laws) that typically applies to facial portraits, signatures, names, and so on. Probably her entitlement to removal would not be satisfied by simply removing her name; once the association between name and picture has been made, removal of the whole thing can probably be required.

As to contacting through OTRS and the possibility that a teenage boy might be the one resolving an OTRS issue, she has the option of writing a letter to Wikimedia Foundation's office, where it's likelier, although not guaranteed, a responsible adult will open her letter.

As to whether she has to prove that the picture is of her, if it is identified as being her, that's probably enough; the law against commercially using a likeness probably applies to (hypothetical) Chris Smith's face even if the face actually belonged to a look-alike but is captioned as being Chris Smith, and with a private part of the body I don't think she needs to send a photo of her own private part to prove the first picture is of her, because, well, her body's private parts are private but the picture is labeled as being of her body part, and only if she denies that the first picture is of her body part might removal of the first picture not be required and only removal of the name might be the result.

If removal is carried out, that should include removal from past page revisions.

Discussions about a person and the history of past images may be damaging, such as for a career, even if the images themselves are gone. Provision for anonymizing discussions, including not only her name but also information potentially identifying her, should be included. (Anonymizing permits preserving discussion for policy and precedential value but without readers knowing who's being talked about.)

None of this addresses the copying of the picture to other websites. Probably some sites' owners believe everything on Wikipedia can be freely copied and will proceed to copy pictures without regard to limitations in Wikimedia. Probably some sites that make copies are hosted outside of the U.S. and are immune to U.S. law. And probably some sites should not be contacted except through a lawyer if at all, because contact likely gives the site owner information about the complainant that could be used for blackmail; contact that is essentially anonymous can be ignored because the complainant's authenticity cannot be verified when anonymous.

A procedure should be present and posted, and it should leave her as much choice and privacy as the law allows.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Is releasing a video onto the internet of a woman having sex, without her permission, akin in any way to rape? Here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Legally? A significantly lesser penalty than rape. Personally? Not as traumatizing as rape but should it happen to me I would feel m privacy exceptionally violated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Islamic marital jurisprudence

The talk page for Islamic marital jurisprudence has a WikiProject Feminism tag and category. The article page does not have this category and does not seem directly relevant to feminism. I think the tag and cat should be removed from the talk page, but wanted to check here with the project first to see if there were objections. Dialectric (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies would seem more appropriate. CarolMooreDC 12:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Islam, I've noticed several Islam-related articles recently that have a strong male bias. Until a few days ago, the article Divorce (Islamic) was completely devoted to the divorce procedure for men, with only one sentence even mentioning the procedure for women (which is completely different). Similarly, the article qadi (Islamic judge) only mentioned men and specifically stated that only men could be qadis, despite the fact that about 100 qadis are women. I've begun to fix both of these articles, but I'm sure there are others that need attention as well. Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Outrageous male bias

Hi there. If there was ever an article on Wikipedia that shows a male bias it is Childless, specifically the list of notable childless couples. If I didn't know myself better I'd say quit Wikipedia. Just a general complaint until I can fix the list. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with a damn good reason, that list is going into the trash bin. Something like 5-10% of couples have no kids.... are we supposed to list 5-10% of famous married people? That'll be a long list, and totally worthless. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The presence of Hitler, Lenin, Quisling and two eugenicists tells me that it's someone pushing an agenda. That section is going, and quickly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is disturbing (and as a "childfree" person it's even weirder reading that page!). Why do they even need to be so detailed? I brought this up on the gender gap list, as well. And the photos used are just as bad. I don't have time this second to work on it, but, it does interest me! SarahStierch (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the replies. Thanks also to Judith Thurman who listed childfree women writers in her introduction to The Second Sex (second translation). I've looked them all up. Several never married or were explicitly lesbian and three actually did have children according to Wikipedia. That still leaves a list of amazing women writers which proves the charges I made here: Charlotte Brontë, Lou Andreas-Salomé, Christina Stead, Isak Dinesen, Katherine Mansfield, Virginia Woolf, Edith Wharton, Carson McCullers, and Djuna Barnes. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Boy oh boy. I got pretty wound up over this and would like to thank Pi for replying on the article talk page. List deleted. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

...Aaaaand an editor added it back. I removed it, with a strong comment on the talk page that such a list is only acceptable if it is limited to people who were a) consciously childfree and their personal choice can be cited or b) whose childlessness was significant for some other reason (wrote a book about it, etc). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to my other comments on the the talk page and my user talk, I must present two issues here. 1) Gender bias? The editor who originally made the list (that would be me, actually) was unaware of any historically notable women who chose to remain childless. Not a single editor decided to improve my list (apparently not even those who have accused me of male chauvinism!), so it remained in its original state. 2) Even if we accept Pi's requirements for the list (I strongly disagree with him/her), someone who decides to remain childless for eugenic purposes (like Quisling and the two eugenicists) surely would meet the criteria? Mvaldemar (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But did they? I've seen no evidence that their choice to be childless was correlated with their beliefs. I don't have evidence (can't as say I know any personally...) but I suspect that no eugenicist would think themself unfit to reproduce. After all, to them, they're responsible enough to have even thought about it.

Also, most of the females listed as partners have their own articles. Yet the entire list was specifically formatted with information about the males and nothing about the females. If this information belongs anywhere, it's something like the not-currently-existing Category:Famous people who did not have children which would be gender-neutral and without commentary, and support the hundreds and thousands of people who fit the category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Split Suggestion for Menstruation Article

I just read the Menstruation article, after looking at the "Popular Pages" for feminist topics listing, and seeing that it needs work. OK, my suggestion is to split it into two articles, to begin with. One for 'Menstruation (human)' and a separate one for 'Menstruation (animal)'. Or a different phrasing to disambiguate the two, I am not a zoologist, so perhaps someone with a background in biology or a similar field can suggest the best way to distinguish them.

Since Menstruation is a well-read article, I assumed that it was going to be about human menstruation, which it is. But it clearly has assumed the scope of 'menstruation-in-mammals-(which-incidentally-includes-humans)'. The lead paragraph, for pete's sake, mentions humans in just one sentence, and the rest of it is devoted to the rest of our mammalian friends, including chimpanzees, assorted simians, bats, shrews (the woodland kind), etc. .... I'm thinking most readers who go to the article are looking for info on menstruation as it relates specifically to humans. Bats? Not so much... I'm speculating, though...lol.

In all seriousness, 'Menstruation (animal)' as a separate article is a good idea, I think; it would be of interest to people who breed animals professionally, ie. dogs and so on. Which is a whole different thing.

Please give me some feedback, or I will ultimately take things into my own hands... OttawaAC (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to have a split in the article. Pregnancy has a human pregnancy and animal gestation/pregnancy page. I think it's perfectly acceptable, and will benefit readers greatly, since it is a popular topic. SarahStierch (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why bother

Hi there. I wonder if anyone here can tell me why bother. The history of feminism said (until a minute ago) that Simone de Beauvoir used the term "liberation" in 1953 but that the term "women's liberation" was first used in 1964. Both translations of Beauvoir get hits for "women's liberation" if I search for liberation. I don't have a copy in French but I might be in the market for one. The contributor list for that article says I contributed a lot of edits but whatever I wrote ain't there no more. Thanks for listening.-SusanLesch (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like only the 2nd volume is online for some reason (in French). The second volume mentions "liberation" three times, but doesn't specifically use the phrase "women's liberation". Does that help at all? Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kaldari, it helps a great deal. Do you have a link to the French? I looked up English in Amazon. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Google finds 5 pages with "libération des femmes" on them. So I had better cite my edit now. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks like Ferdinand Buisson has Simone de Beauvoir beat by a few decades. In his Le Vote des Femmes (The Vote for Women), on page 14, he writes the following regarding Olympe de Gouges: "...dans son Bonheur primitif de l'homme ou les rêveries patriotiques, cette phrase, qui annonçait son entreprise pour la libération des femmes: « Ce sexe trop faible et trop longtemps opprimé est prêt à secouer le joug d'un esclavage honteux. »", which translates roughly to: "...in her Primitive human happiness or patriotic musings, this sentence, which announced her project for the liberation of women: 'the sex too low and too long oppressed is ready to shake the yoke of a shameful slavery.'". That was published in 1911. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And actually, I think the quote from Olympe de Gouges is even more relevant than Buisson's. It dates from 1789. Kaldari (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Kaldari I am happy to see you know this subject and have improved this article. It just sounded ridiculous to say the phrase was first used in 1964. You've fixed that now. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism milestone

We now have over 100 members! Party time! Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! Do we have a door prize for lucky member number 100? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I left them a welcome message. Does that count? Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I left them a cup of tea. :D Woo! Now let's write 100 new feminism oriented articles... ;-) SarahStierch (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in Saudi Arabia

Please help here: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Women_in_Saudi_Arabia_get_the_right_to_vote. It will require some quick attention in order to be suitable for In The News. --FormerIP (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Any advice

Hi Everyone:

I am a PoliSci student from Connecticut who happens to be a strong, independent woman. For a class project, I need to help make additions, edits, and research on a particular article which is dear to me. I really would like to do this with WikiProject Feminism. I was wondering if you would suggest anything that needs some research etc.

Kristen46 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)kristen46Kristen46 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristen46 (talk • contribs)

Hi there. Do you want to start a new article from scratch, or edit an existing article that needs expansion? If you go to the WP:Feminism "main page" for this project, on the lower right side there's a box with the header "Articles needing attention" -- some of them have had a lot of new material added to them just recently, but if you go through the links, you may see something that interests you. At the bottom of that box, there is also a link for "Popular pages". If you click on that, you will see a list of articles with a feminist subject that get the most hits (unique readers I think is what the list is counting). :You can see that the articles listed there have quality assessments, there are a few with "C" or "B" assessments that could be improved.

If you want to start a new article, I'm not sure where you could start for ideas. Since you're studying Poli Sci, you may be studying some areas that have only limited coverage on Wikipedia. Whatever you write, aim high, aim for Feature Article status. (-; Welcome too, it's good to see a fresh volunteer!

OttawaAC (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kristen, we have a LOT of articles that need research and improvement. What areas are you mainly interested in? History? Comtemporary issues? Biographies? 3rd World? Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Gender neutrality template

I would like to propose creating a Template:Gendergap template modelled on Template:Globalize. This could use a symbol like File:Igualtat_de_sexes.svg and a message such as

• "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a gender-neutral view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page" or
• "The gender neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

It would generate its own hidden category, analogous to categories like Category:Articles_with_limited_geographic_scope_from_August_2011. Views? --JN466 09:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I see two advantages: (1) The category would help with locating and fixing problematic articles. (2) The presence of the template would send a signal to the readership that we are aware of and working on the problem, and encourage participation. --JN466 10:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support and if you create it, go ahead and add it to rape culture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

*Support Sounds great and like one stop shopping for those of us interested in neutralizing content like this! Thanks for taking the lead on this Jayen! SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Given the rabid reactions of many when the topic of gender bias comes up, we would probably be better off using existing NPOV tags with explanations on the talk page. I think explicitly identifying articles as gender biased will just shut down discussion. --Danger (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I saw this today, see Steven Goldberg for an example - it's for gender studies. Perhaps it was previously mentioned...? SarahStierch (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a good way to deal with these issues. Use general templates that include spaces for personal comments, as the two do below.CarolMooreDC 04:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose [gender neutrality template] I see this as a bad precedent because soon we'd have every group clammering for one and there would be "Smacks of Antisemitism/Racism/Islamophobia/Anti-GLBT/Anti-Military/Anti-Republican Party/etc" templates and all of that could become quite subjective and be used to stifle debate. Let's face it, being called a sexist is still the least offensive things in many males eyes. And we can expect the best organized groups with the most representation here would push hard for and get a template that would censor wikipedia on their favorite topics. It's best to put up NPOV tag and then bring the problem here. CarolMooreDC 04:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral Changed to neutral, after finding the above template and mulling over Carol's comments....I think a number of us who write about feminist topics have seen the effects of opposing parties. It's something to seriously think about. SarahStierch (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Alternate wording suggestion: "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a gender-diverse view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page".--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely better, since if it was used by other groups above it would not have the same bite. Will think about it. CarolMooreDC 16:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support [gender diversity template] for reasons stated by others. Plus templates with existing comments sometimes easier to remember/find than the empty ones you then have to remember how to appropriately fill out. CarolMooreDC 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good wording! I'd go for that. (While it's probably the right template for the Goldberg page, the one thing I don't like that much about "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. ... WikiProject Gender Studies or the Gender Studies Portal may be able to help recruit an expert." is that it is not very inviting to new users.) --JN466 18:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree about that "recruiting" statement. It's rather intimidating! SarahStierch (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think that Pharos' suggestion is better and I agree with the points made by Carol and Sarah. The term "gender-neutrality" is likely to be provocative in many unhelpful ways and it is also but harder to understand than the need for greater diversity, which aligns with both NPOV and globalisation policies. It would be be even better if any hat-note explicitly mentioned/linked to NPOV, as Danger said, and perhaps also to globalisation. For example: "This article may not present a neutral or global point of view because of its limited gender perspective. More diverse or inclusive examples are needed ..." After all, it is possible there may be too many female examples given in, for instance, articles on female-dominated industries. I also think it would be a bad idea in this context to say an article's gender-neutrality is "disputed". This suggests a dispute exists where there may not be one. The most important thing though is that any such hat-note links to guidelines which provides examples of how to improve gender diversity or perspective. There is no point applying such a template if there is no help provided to well-intentioned editors. Whiteghost.ink 11:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think Carol's suggest of using existing teamplates with a comment field is a better way to go. Otherwise I agree with Danger's remarks--Cailil ^talk 15:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While applauding the intention of this suggestion and being outraged by sexism on Wikipedia, I agree that any such template would set a POV-pushing precedent (and so be deleted rather quickly). Rhetorically---slapping a template on an article would make many of the article's authors more defensive and resentful. It would be better boldly to implement changes or cautiously to suggest changes on talk pages. Just writing a short personal statement of concern may elicit a chivalrous volunteer offering to solve the problem according to Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus ;) and at least in my case! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, and Tawakel Karman have just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in women's rights. We should definitely be keeping an eye out for vandalism, as well as searching for better free images for the infoboxes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving us the heads up! I shared it on the gender gap list also! SarahStierch (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Web Source for Lists of Women Leaders Worldwide

Just popping in to share an excellent source I found for anyone interested in adding biographies (or info for longer articles): http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/index.html

A Danish guy (who is fantastic and should get a huge plate of Wikistrudel!) has compiled many lists of women leaders, both contemporary and historical, including members of governments, presidents, candidates, party leaders, women police chiefs, and other categories. There is almost no biographical information available on the women, but the lists themselves are a terrific resource. Also see the list of Links that he has for other excellent Web resources on women leaders worldwide.

My personal goal is to slowly get at least stubs started for every woman mentioned on that site...

OttawaAC (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Although it's not very scientific, the list of redlinks here is fun to go through. Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling AfD open

The article on wife selling has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to take a look at the discussion. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The AfD has been closed, with the decision being to keep the article. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yay! SarahStierch (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New article: assistance appreciated

I've nominated the new article History of the birth control movement in the United States for good article recognition. Any assistance would be appreciated: either as the GA reviewer, or just scanning the article and making any improvements you see fit. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Women's Rights in Brazil

I will be creating a new page for "Women's Rights in Brazil" in order to document the evolution of women's rights in the country. This article is part of the growing number of articles tackling women's rights in specific countries. Right now, many of the articles focus on Western Europe, North America and the Middle East. Latin America has not been covered save for the exceptions of Colombia and Cuba. As the largest country in Latin America and the seventh largest economy in the world, Brazil deserves an article on women's rights that chronicles the actors, catalysts and effects of the granting of women's rights in Brazil. Though a "Women in Brazil" page does exist and is a redirect for "Women's Rights," a separate article needs to exists rather than a redirect to "Women in Brazil." The "Women in Brazil" article is too broad to be considered a part of the women's rights articles, as it only addresses women's rights peripherally. I will begin my work with a section in "Women in Brazil" called "Women's Rights in Brazil," and then link that section to a new page of the same title. The "Women's Rights in Brazil" article will take a historiographical approach to women's rights in Brazil within sections, looking at the evolution of particular rights through time. As a whole, the article will position sections as separate categories, dividing up women's rights thematically but also somewhat chronologically. I will begin with the suffrage movement, utilizing secondary historical sources as well as primary newspaper reports related to suffrage. Next I will tackle the rights granted to women in the three Brazilian constitutions of the 20th century. Other rights include economic rights, reproductive rights, laws regarding sexual violence, the relationship between women's rights and human rights movements in Brazil, and finally the key activists in women's movement, which hopefully will later be turned into separate articles I know one already exists for Bertha Lutz, the visionary of the Brazilian suffrage movement, and I hope to create more for other less well-known Brazilian feminists. I was planning on adding a section on Educational rights but education is addressed in the "Women in Brazil" entry and I don't know how much more I could add to it than I have now, though I will continue to look for sources. FrancescaSchley (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds very exciting. Let us know when we can take a look and if you need any help. Kaldari (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It would also be good to give the Portuguese-language Wikipedia a request for translation into Portuguese once it's done. Surely someone there would be willing to translate it. Spanish Wikipedia too... worth asking anyway. OttawaAC (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the article has been created. It is quite an impressive piece of work. Please help to copyedit and revise it as necessary. Kaldari (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The article looks very good. I just combined multiple citations (57 down to 30) and left a note on the talk page explaining how to do it in the future. Other than that, it looks excellent. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference desk question

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Feminism (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN notice

Feminism in India is up for Good Article as part of a university project. Anyone who would like to give these students feedback on their work on this critical topic are welcome to do so. Danger ^{High voltage!} 14:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image choice again

This is far from the most heinous example I've seen, but check out the Picture of the Day at Commons. My first reaction was "how interesting, and how nice to have anything on WP to do with dance." My second reaction was "don't I usually see her posed on the mudflap of a semi?" To me it's just an example of how the default setting in choosing images is to display the female body in a sexually appealing way. (Serious dancers don't have large breasts, for obvious reasons: they're distracting.) Anyway, this caused me more of a pained smile and groan rather than indignation, but for some reason I felt compelled to share it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No self control. I had to get my 2 cents in. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Spinning_Dancer.gif CarolMooreDC 16:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, your lack of self control gave me my best laugh of the morning, so thanks! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree (and didn't know about the professional dance conflict). Also, the picture seems not to illustrate the captioned point, since I think I can tell that rotation is clockwise by the temporal sequence of facial features appearing and disappearing, the lengths of on-body illumination reflections such as on the arms, given normal perspective by the angle of the in-air foot, and possibly by the ponytail (I tried to tell if it had a form below her shoulder level, as it seems to by a tiny amount per an illumination reflection, but that's difficult to see with certainty on my defectively displaying laptop (I forgot to try enlarging)), although to be sure I want to freeze the motion and I don't know how (Print Screen chops the image horizontally, probably due to display scanning). If I'm right, then it's even more likely that the image got approved as featured via sexism. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help fixing up a new article

One of our university project participants recently posted a new article for ladies' aid societies. The article was proposed for deletion 2 hours later. If anyone wants to help improve the article, there are several potential sources given at the bottom. It also needs some copy editing for grammar and tone. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope what I did helps. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Feminism is now a Good Article!

When I saw that Feminism had been nominated for Good Article by an anonymous IP, I didn't think anything would come of it, but Cailil and SusanLesch stepped up to the plate and carried it all the way to a successful promotion! Feminism is now officially a Good Article! Congratulations guys! Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I had to check to see whether it was a drive-by review or a clerical oversight but no, it's really true. This is fantastic news, it's such an important article for the project to get right, heartiest of congratulations and gratitude to the authors! Skomorokh 00:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A fun new project

I created a table for SarahStierch's List of women in the Heritage Floor, but it needs some help being fleshed out. There are 999 women in the table, so it's a lot of data to add. If you're more of a prose-writer than a table-filler, we could also use help making sure that all of the women have decent articles, or just articles period. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Info on all of the women can be found here, or on Wikipedia of course. Kaldari (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Why Most Women Will Become CEO"

I found this opinion piece:

• Marks, Gene. "Why Most Women Will Never Become CEO." Forbes. October 31, 2011.

I'm not sure if there's been much followup on it... there's another Marks one that is getting more followup WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

'Misogyny'

Is there a de facto ban on using the word 'misogyny' in a Wikipedia article? I have a completely impeccable RS using the word 'misogyny' to describe a particular piece of Latin sexual slang, and the word 'misogynistic' has been deleted multiple times over a period of six months now. I keep putting it back in, explaining that it's attributed to a source, and that if the editor feels this is incorrect, then he needs to produce a source that contradicts the one used. The discussion of this is at Talk:Lupanar (Pompeii)#'misogynistic' and also on my talk page (see also the article history back to June). I've been editing WP for years, and never had a problem when I've used the exact word of a cited source. It occurred to me that members of this project might be able to enlighten me as to any history or guideline discussions that specially restrict the use of the word 'misogyny.' (And apologies if I get answers here and don't respond for a while; I'm trying to take a holiday.) Cynwolfe (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving 6 articles to "honor" killings

I noticed Kevin McE's move request regarding moving Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh back to Killing of Sadia Sheikh at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Article alerts‎. I discovered that six articles had been changed from killing to honor killing: Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü, Honor killing of Fadime Sahindal, Honor killing of Samaira Nazir, Honor killing of Ghazala Khan. I also noted User:Kevin McE had reverted them, and had them reverted by the original mover, User:Plot Spoiler; thus his move request.

If WP:RS support using "honor killing" I would not necessarily have a problem as a feminist with this. But I believe this was done and defended as part of the ongoing use of Wikipedia for Muslim bashing and I'm quite annoyed by any abuse of feminist views for bigoted purposes. (Especially after a similar experience at Gender apartheid where a Muslim basher repeatedly came back as a sock and then resorted to 80 odd death threats to me via email!)

Note that when I posted a note on this move request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, an editor supporting the move reverted it as "canvassing." As if it would be ok to revert such a posting at this project about an article (or six!) about feminism/women whose titles were suspiciously changed!

Anyway, if people want to comment on my proposal under "Series of "Honor" killing moves" section on talk page feel free. My proposal is that moves should be decided on a case by case basis on all six articles since WP:RS labeling them "honor killings" - and even notability itself - vary. That this should be mentioned at Wikiproject Islam. The editor who made the original moves should revert back and go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves and do a multiple listing of all six articles so the wider community can comment on each article's talk page. And obviously misuse of articles regarding women/feminist issues for questionable purposes should be discouraged. CarolMooreDC 13:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor pointed out an opposite possible problem with this renaming, writing: The presence in the article title of the word honor or honour lends editorial credence to the killing, acknowledging that it is okay to carry out such murders in some cultures. Wikipedia must not give even the slightest hint of support in the article title. The more neutral title is "killing of" or "death of". That's the benefit of community input. And certainly makes issue more relevant to this noticeboard. CarolMooreDC 19:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved in and ignorant of any particulars here, but I did notice the revert you mentioned, supposedly justified on the basis of "canvassing." You took no position in posting your notice, and merely informed the project of the move discussion. The deletion of your post is a clear misapplication of WP:CANVASS, which says that it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Project talk pages are listed first among the appropriate ways to solicit broader participation. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion, Cynwolfe. The canvassing accusation was unfounded. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that a couple editors (neutral and evolved) have agree with me here, I think I'll put it back, but update to note it involves six articles. CarolMooreDC 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on Jayjg's talk page asking if he could clarify the canvassing accusation. I didn't see anything wrong with Carol's notice personally. On the issue of the titles, I agree they should be decided on a case by case basis and reflect whatever wording is used by reliable sources. I don't really buy the argument that calling an honor killing an honor killing supports it being 'honorable'. We also have an article on Military intelligence, but that doesn't mean the military is actually intelligent ;) Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I did learn one important thing on canvassing issue. One should look at which Wikiprojects are listed on the page and go to one or more of those first. In this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography‎ was particularly relevant. Wikiproject Pakistan also listed which might have given some of the same demographics as Wikiproject Islam. Oi, so much too learn still! CarolMooreDC 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though WIkiProject Islam hadn't bannered the article in question, the main article on honor killing makes it clear that this is a controversial subject in relation to Islam, and project members may have experience in dealing with the topic, whether or not the project has chosen to banner it. You alerted the project that occurred to you as relevant, and other editors are free to notify additional projects. In general I think attempts to limit participation in any given discussion are bad for consensus-building. Cliques or grudges matter less when greater numbers of editors participate. There's no reason to expect that the members of WikiProject Islam (or any other project) would hold uniform views on a given question. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, since it has been lurking in my mind. Especially since I found a Phyllis Chesler article here stating "The lies and slander that have been generated against Israel are every bit as false and unjust as the lies told to justify the honor killing of girls and women." Which shows the kind of POV I suspected lurked. I.e., painting the barbaric old tribal custom actions against women done by a few individuals to symbolize a whole religion and then excuse the military aggression of Israel and western states against members of that religion. (And killing thousands and even tens of thousand women with bombs.)

On a technical note you can read the update on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography at this diff with details. The new article of with "Honor killing" retained that name but it was quite clear there was no community consensus to change all the others. And I think it's pretty much a wikipedia principle that when two editors object to a name change the person who made the original change should change it back. As I say, I don't now how to do that myself after a couple name change moves. CarolMooreDC 05:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On the phrase "honor killing" itself, I agree with Kaldari's remark above. Duels, for instance, were fought ostensibly over honor as defined by the participants, but we as individuals today might view that as a poor sort of honor. If the sources considered reliable for compiling an article call it an "honor killing," then it would be non-neutral or OR for WP editors to decide that it doesn't meet our own definition of "honor". I believe there's been some discussion that the notability of at least some of these deaths resides in the label "honor killing," without which they may not have attracted international notice. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What is interesting is that the person who submitted the requested move did it on the grounds that ALL the WP:RS used quotation marks around honor killing. (I missed that point because he kept calling them upside down commas.) I've asked him to prove that point since he's still annoyed about the name staying the same. If it is true in these WP:RS, I don't know if it is in the others. So that's another issue. My last message states my main concern, given the overall circumstances of who is putting in what and why in my estimation. CarolMooreDC 01:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related issue the Honor killing article itself seems to be used to POV push that it's overwhelmingly Muslims who have/do it, as part of anti-Muslim crusades. I added one relevant piece of info and will add a few more. I'm not going to get as involved in cutting excess material as I did at Gender apartheid, but I do not feel it is canvassing to bring up my concerns about that article at Wikproject Islam. CarolMooreDC 21:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Another thing that bothers me is that the impression being left is that anything labeled "honor killing" is so much worse than other reasons men kill women (or other men). Rape killing or rage killing or inheritance killing or she's leaving me for another man killing, oh, well, that's bad, but not as bad... Or am I just being paranoid? CarolMooreDC 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport

Hello if sports fascinate you: WikiProject Women's sport and Portal:Women's sport, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Feminist art

Hi everyone. I started a section on the talk page for Talk:Feminist_art_movement#Clean_up_of_this_article about cleaning up the really frightening article. I'm working a bit on it, but of course, I'd like input from others (or I'll just start going at it! ;-) ). It's primarily questions about dealing with the frightening looking timeline and the equally scary and long bibliography. Also asking about renaming the article "Feminist art movement in the United States". Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I don't have the expertise. I'd delay renaming, since articles generally should be globalized until there's almost no more room and then it might help to break out national movements into their own articles, leaving this for everywhere else and as a worldwide summary at that time. Thank you for your work. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rape culture (once again)

A new editor is asking some questions about the origin of the term 'rape culture' and questioning the neutrality of the article at Talk:Rape culture#Neutrality (2). I'm not sure some of them are very founded - just because we don't and probably cannot assemble a complete timeline of its usage and meaning doesn't make the article necessarily non-neutral, it just make sit incomplete - but they're worth a look. I'd appreciate some outside views (particularly from someone who's not falling asleep at the keyboard like I am...). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As the person/editor referred to - I have been addressing the origins of the term and it's first known usage which is in fact the 1975 Film "Rape Culture" a view supported by the Director Margaret Lazarus. Citations provided in talk.

The the gross failure to address Synonyms such as "Rapism", "Rape-Enabling Culture", "Rape-Supportive Culture" and "Culture Of Rape" which have "Parallel Use" causes Systemic Bias and Institutional/System Racism, as it would seem that some only want to bother with media uses of the term "Rape Culture" in it's present US-centric usage.

I am surprised that so many have been happy to ignore the reality of "Rape Culture" in it's entirety affecting millions of women, men and children on a global scale. It would appear that past editing has trivialised the subject and reality, and compromised the "Five Pillars". I too think that oversight by experienced editors would be highly valuable. I fear that in the past the page has been edited as a Propaganda Page and not a valid source for reference. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

From the article's inception in 2005 until it came to my attention about a year ago, a significant majority of the edits were back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth-ad-absurdium conflicts over minor points. Back in October 2009, there was a brief controversy over a massive personal essay from a blog - 22kb in size, or slightly larger than the article in its entire current state - which was eventually removed as irrelevant POV commentary. Were these use as a propaganda page? Quite possibly. Most of the text that lasted until 2011, though, was extant from the very first version of the article.

During the past 11 months or so, with a few exceptions (mostly consisting of vandalism and revert), most substantial editing has been by myself, Kaldari, Mmyers1976, and Danavanell. The current revision contains a significant amount of text (I'd guess around 13kb including the citations) that I've written, as well as substantial work by those three editors. If you believe I am using this as a propaganda page, then please say so. Wikipedia is an open system; my mistakes are there for everyone to see, and if I edit with a bias then it's for the best to let me know so I can correct it.

As for the worry over the 1975 date: please see Kaldari's recent edit (summary: Origins and usage: adding info about 1974 use and consolidating some redundant wording) where they provide a citation for a 1974 use of the word in a feminist context. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

oh my dear poor english

Hello, I worked this page Canadian Interuniversity Sport women's ice hockey championship. If you want to verify my English spelling. Thanks. Bonjour, J'ai travaillé cette page. Si tu veux vérifier ma mauvaise orthographe anglaise , merci beaucoup. --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

National Collegiate Women's Ice Hockey Championship

One person erased all my work on the page by saying; rvt to last known good version. The new text is poorly written, non-neutral, and not very accurate [8]. I have just answered this on his talk page[9]...Your intervention is incomprehensible [10]. You have eliminate all my work without any discussion with me. I inform you that the text is in discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Watercooler and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Can you maintaining to present to the group your arguments and opinions. Thanks --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some editing of your text. Feel free to pick up where I left off. Problems I recognized included tense (the present tense was used where the past tense should have been), placement of ref elements before periods ending sentences (they should follow them), dashes and spaces in page ranges (237–238, not 237 -238, using an en-dash and not a hyphen), capitalization of proper names, extra spacing, and some writing that seemed more fit for advertising than for an encyclopedia (probably what the other editor meant by non-neutrality). I wonder whether the law quotation should say "subjected" or "subject"; I didn't change that or look up the original; I also wonder whether the citation to that law in the U.S. Code is correct (there should be a title number and a section number). I wonder whether some citations are identrical and could be named so one reference will serve several locations in the article, but I have to leave this computer session in a few minutes. There was some other stuff and there was stuff I didn't touch because I lack expertise in the subject. Best wishes and thanks for your work. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems awfully lazy for that other editor to just revert, rather than allow for copyediting (or do it themselves) - especially since your revisions looked pretty good, Genevieve. Then again, not everyone is a copyeditor like I am... Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks the debate is made here [11] on WikiProject Women's sport. You are welcome to participate in it. Merci , Thanks ,תודה --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting points: The syntactical conditional ("... would ....") shouldn't be used for the past in an encyclopedia; either the event happened or it didn't. And setting the References section to three columns may be burdensome for users of cell phones and other small screens. On capitalization, I think the French language often lower-cases words that in English are capitalized.

(I indented all replies one additional step, since when I first replied I hadn't noticed that the original post was also indented.)

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A teamwork together

Why not? Each of us has the skills and we can quite together contribute. I propose the writing together of the page Major women's sport leagues in North America. In more this collective realization can allow us of know and to settle together a solidarity, Soyons solidaire ensemble, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 5 day later regrettably few participants in the writing of the page Major women's sport leagues in North America . Then I need of yours fellback, to know of what you think of the text. I also need to make correct the text (spelling and syntax) saddened for the bad quality of my English language [12] . Merci beaucoup de votre aide. תודה על העזרה שלך --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Popular pages for January

The popular pages list has been updated for January. The only surprises are Jane Fonda and Yoko Ono shot into the top 10. I think Jane Fonda's popularity is due to her being the focus of a January episode of Oprah Presents Master Class. And Yoko's doing some art show in India. Other than that, I didn't notice any major changes. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jane Fonda was also on the Golden Globes, and the press went nuts over how great she looks "for her age," as they say. I think Yoko has some new music out, I follow her Twitter. I have to say, I'm a fan of both! Also, Roe vs. Wade's 39th anniversary was yesterday... SarahStierch (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Shows what I know :) Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well at least you didn't out yourself by admitting you watched junky celebrity news programming....I swear it was on after the news, that's the only reason why! :) SarahStierch (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Little deception. No women's sport page is popular in January. It is frustrating. [13] --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the majority of women's sports articles do not fall under WikiProject:Feminism. I'm sure a "popular page" bot can be programmed for the women's sports project. SarahStierch (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Merci Sarah. Thank you for the information. I don't know how to programming . It would be really relevant for the project can be desire you to help us to program her Women'sport page most popular in the month ? --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to do it here [14] but it looks like they aren't taking any new requests. Perhaps Kaldari knows some secret I don't! SarahStierch (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't. Unfortunately, I have the same problem with my Hot Articles bot. I've had to turn away all new requests unless they involve a very small number of articles due to strains on the toolserver. I can't wait until there's an alternative to the toolserver. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Anybody does not want to help the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport to have a list of the most popular pages every month? --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A small fun project for anyone interested

Mark Twain wrote 3 chapters of an unfinished novel called Hellfire Hotchkiss. The main character was an "admirable, resourceful, and heroic female protagonist." Although there aren't many sources that discuss it, there are probably enough to write a short article. For example The Mark Twain encyclopedia has a small section on it. If no one beats me to it, I'll start working on it tonite. Feel free to jump in :) Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I should also mention it's the only Mark Twain novel lacking an article. Kaldari (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a book. I think I just added "Hellfire" to another potential Halloween costume concept. Thanks for starting the article! SarahStierch (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article on Women's Rights in Asia

While I'm not an active member of this WikiProject, I came across an article that I thought your group should know about and that I'm interested in improving. The article Women's rights in Asia is in a terrible state. It was created nearly two years ago, has had only about a dozen edits in that time, currently consists of just one sentence and a photo, and is decidedly non-neutral in tone. I found it while assembling a list of articles for a friend of mine working for the Asian Women's Leadership University Project, which is trying to integrate Wikipedia into the curricula for a women's liberal arts school it's starting in Malaysia. She and I are both still learning the ropes of editing, and are not familiar with whatever processes your project has for triage and overhaul of articles like this. Could I trouble someone to take a look at this page and advise me (and my friend) on how to proceed? Are there any subject-matter experts who could opine on Women's rights in Asia, and if so, could I ask you some questions on your talk page? If I'm posting this on the wrong page, could I trouble someone to direct me to the forum you think is more appropriate? Thanks! -- Darmokandjalad (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete the article, as it has no useful content, and we normally do women's rights articles by country, not by continent. Looks like we need to create a Women's rights in Malaysia article. Kaldari (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Prod it quick - or quickly. CarolMooreDC 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to find a criterion under the Speedy Deletion Policy that would allow deletion without discussion. Does anyone have any advice as to how I should tag this thing? -- Darmokandjalad (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and prodded it since I couldn't figure out a good criteria for speedy deletion. If you come up with one, feel free to change it. Kaldari (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused about the meaning of prod. Still new! -- Darmokandjalad (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for Featured Article nomination

This project has an opportunity to promote its article Birth control movement in the United States article to Featured Article status. If you are familiar with the Featured Article criteria, you are welcome to contribute a FA review at the review page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Feminism will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to...you guessed it, women's history and feminism! We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

merci Sarah, ceci est très important comme célébration féministe צעד שמיני חשובכ/כפי שחגיגת פמיניסט --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India: Women and gender issues

Hi everyone. AshLin has created a new task force for WikiProject India about women and gender issues! We're hoping this will populate as a place for improving coverage related to women and gender subjects. I'm so excited about it and I hope it inspires others to create similar task forces. (And wouldn't it be wonderful to see them disappear someday? :) I hope you'll find interest and help expand and build upon this great beginning. Visit the page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Women and gender issues SarahStierch (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The gender gap in real time

If you want to see a very depressing chart, take a look at http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wmcharts/wmchart0010.php. Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A summary of the data in the link: in January, known male editors on Wikipedia made about 40,000 edits per day, except for the SOPA protest blackout day. Known female editors made about 2200 per day; a ratio of approximately one female edit to 18 male edits. The chart does not tell us how many edits were made by people who do not disclose their gender, nor does it tell us what was the practical value of each edit, whether it is male or female editors that put more effort into each separate "Save page" contribution. It does not say how many of the known-gender edits were quickly reverted.

Still, it is clear that the goal of gender parity is still painfully far away. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This chart is just another tool in the "duh" factor about women and Wikipedia; and everything else in the movement. We know we have low numbers, and we know we need to change it. Now we just need people to start stepping up and making change. If depressing numbers make a difference in the world being "inspired" to participate, I'd like to see it. Everytime a new study or chart comes out (including the one I did) people just go "oh yeah things suck at Wikipedia." Nothing seems to happen. If every editor encouraged a new female editor to participate, imagine what a real equal world of free knowledge we'd have. SarahStierch (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have to say - it is kind of funny to see that WikiNews is all dudes. No women on the chart. The funny thing is that This Month in GLAM and the Signpost both have female contributors. SarahStierch (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also sad to see that the gap is roughly the same or worse in all the major languages. The only ones that I've seen that are better are Dutch and Hebrew. Maybe we could ask them for pointers. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone see what the figures are for the German Wikipedia? I couldn't get that one to work. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to work either. SarahStierch (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see how the women are doing there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The skwiki isn't so bad. Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what that is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation, which I'm sure you've all heard many times, but WP currently has no accurate way of measuring a "gender gap". The current measures are simplistic in the extreme. Many of us do not disclose our gender in obvious ways but do so in conversations. Observe particularly this one. Observe also the subtle way this prolific editor approaches disclosure [15]. I take a similar tack on my own user page. In this report for the WMF, of the English WP editors interviewed about half of us were women, including an arbitrator, several admins, and some very active content editors. Women editors are also very active in the featured article process. It's well-known that most new page patrollers and vandalism fighters are men. Obviously, they're going to have higher edit counts. That's a very crude measure and says nothing about the relative productivity and participation of women on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ps #1 Incidentally, at least one adminstrator in WikiNews is a woman and two of the accredited reporters have names which indicate that that they could well be women. Voceditenore (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PS #2. I don't know how many of you work in copyvio clean up or the performing arts, but I'd say that at the bare minimum, a third of the editors I deal with are women. Unfortunately, most of them are PR consultants or employees of artist management companies, and they're busily creating articles on behalf of their clients. A good proportion of the rest are creating articles about themselves! Voceditenore (talk)

We have talked about how these statistics are menial at best due to most women not declaring gender. Most of these conversations take place on the gender gap mailing list. But yeah, I don't get much value out of them except for a few "oh huh well that's somewhat interesting." A lot of people I help on OTRS are PR people and are often women. I've been working with folks like that for a while now, I even find them on Twitter. Most often seem like lost causes, but, some are able to learn and grow as contributors :) I do encourage you to pop on the gender gap list if subject matters related to this interest you. Thanks for popping in the conversation here! SarahStierch (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you have the accumulated by project family http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wmcharts/wmchart0013.php. As all use MediaWiki, this graph may destroy any theory about software usability issues for females. emijrp (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape

Hey folks, I started an article for Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. It's a super stub, but, perhaps someone will find some interest and expand it. Woo! SarahStierch (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing women

The missing women article is very weak and needs to be edited and strengthened. BerikG (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade at Featured Article Review

I have nominated Roe v. Wade for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. NW (Talk) 16:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

feminism sidebar, wife selling, husband-selling, and Mary Daly

There's a disagreement on whether the feminism sidebar (listing major articles) belongs on the Wife selling and Husband-selling articles. It's been removed from both. It's also been removed from the Mary Daly article, in which the lede describes Daly as "an American radical feminist philosopher, academic, and theologian." A discussion is at the wife selling talk page, Propose to Restore Feminism Sidebar Template topic. Please feel free to take a look. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month and Lisa Randall

Lisa Randall would be a good project for Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. There are other ideas on the latter's talk page, including a link to a to-do list and a list of less-well-known women. GraniteStateGrump (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

March 8th Featured Article

They're debating what article to run on March 8th as the Featured Article. That day is International Women's Day, so I think something that fits that theme should run.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:67.70.147.72 in Centre Étienne Desmarteau

Caution:User talk:67.70.147.72 These 3 computers ( 2 in first floor and one computers in the second floor in the office of direction) are connected in the Centre Étienne Desmarteau at Montreal , Canada: it means that several users can write on these computers. I do not want to be implied and involved with this IP community address. In the pass , I have some very big problems with many people in the same IP im Centre Étienne Desmarteau ( see french wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2 )

Attention: l'adresse IP 67.70.147.72 est une adresse communautaire de 3 ordinateurs. Ces 3 ordinateurs ( 2 sont situés au première étage dans les vestiaires des équipes et un ordinateur est situé au deuxième étage dans le bureau de la coordination de l'aréna) sont reliés au fr:Centre Étienne Desmarteau  : Cela signifie que plusieurs utilisateurs peuvent écrire sur ces ordinateurs. Je ne veux pas être impliquée avec cette adresse communautaire. J'ai eu suffisamment de problèmes dans le Wiki francophone avec l'utilisation communataire d'une même adresse IP du Centre Étienne Desmarteau par plusieurs utilisateurs (Faux-nez http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2). --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Punk Collaboration

Greeting Project Feminism! As part of Sarah's wonderful WikiWomen's History Month, project punk is looking at improving Bikini Kill's page. From my experience living in a few feminist spaces, there is a large crossover between Riot grrrl fans and feminists. If you are interested in this please tell us here. Cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gender gap connected to conflict aversion and lower confidence among women

The Gender Gap hub on Meta.

Since January 2011, Wikipedia's "Gender gap" has received much attention from Wikimedians, researchers and the media – triggered by a New York Times article that cited the estimate that only 12.64% of Wikipedia contributors are female. That figure came from the 2010 UNU-MERIT study, which was based on the first global, general survey of Wikipedia users, conducted in 2008 with 176,192 respondents using a methodology that had raised some questions (e.g. about sample bias and selection bias, other studies found similarly low ratios). A new paper titled "Conflict, Confidence, or Criticism: An Empirical Examination of the Gender Gap in Wikipedia" has now delved further into the data of the UNU-MERIT study, examining the responses to questions such as "Why don't you contribute to Wikipedia?" and "Why did you stop contributing to Wikipedia?", finding strong support for the following three hypotheses:

• "H1: Female Wikipedia editors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia due to the high level of conflict involved in the editing, debating, and defending process." ("Controlling for other factors females were 26% more likely to select 'I got into conflicts with other Wikipedia contributors' as a reason for no longer contributing. The coefficients for being afraid of being 'criticized' [31% higher probability to be selected by female users as a reason against becoming more active in Wikipedia], 'yelled at', and 'getting into trouble' are all significant".)
• "H2: Female Wikipedia editors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia due to gender differences in confidence in expertise to contribute and lower confidence in the value of their contribution. "
• "H3: Female contributors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia because they prefer to share and collaborate rather than delete and change other's work."

A fourth hypothesis likewise tested a conjecture that has been brought up several times in discussion about Wikipedia's gender gap:

• "H4: Female contributors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia because they have less discretionary time available to spend contributing".

However, the paper's authors argued that this conjecture was not borne out by the data, instead finding that "men are 19% more likely to select 'I didn't have time to go on' as a reason for no longer contributing."

source: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Recent research

This message was sent has our best male friends User talk:LtPowers, User talk:Voceditenore, User talk:Djsasso (administrator on Ice hockey wikiproject), User talk:Maple Leaf, Good luck and bonne chance, et מזל טוב --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Um... I'm a woman. Don't know about the others it was sent to, but what exactly is the point of this? Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice research, thank you!

My instincts from years of um, managing people, and the occasional large groups of people, was telling me the same thing... I actually posted very very similar stuff to what this says it's almost eerie: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision#Humour_has_a-a_place, 10 days before this! Thanks, don't feel it isn't appreciated this project just doesn't get as much traffic as it should do[16] You should post over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias too! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

College Women in Science and Engineering

Hello there fellow Feminists,

I'm interested in creating a new article on Wikipedia tentatively named "College Women in Science and Engineering." I've decided to create this article because the lack of women in these fields is a common issue throughout the world, but as seen by the numerous articles I've visited so far, it is not discussed significantly enough. My article will discuss the lack of women in the S/E field, historical discrimination factors behind this issue, and their consequences for women both in college and in the job market beyond graduation. The other sub-sections I'll be adding are currently in a brainstorming process, but nevertheless, I hope to shed light on this issue beyond devoting just one paragraph or two alone (what I've seen on other pages). This is an issue that is too often and incorrectly assumed to be attributed to just women's choice alone, or worse, to some innate lack of mental capacity. I wish to discuss this and more in depth, so I'll be free to suggestions and peer edits for the next couple of months as I work everything out. It is also worth noting that, for time and space concerns, my article will only focus on this issue in America.

J hernan26 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)J hernan26

Just to warn you, there's a chance that such a specific article will be deleted. You may want to try expanding articles such as Women in engineering and Women in science first. The Women in engineering article is especially poor and could stand significant expansion. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(((( Update ))))

This is in response to my above posting about creating the "College Women in Science and Engineering" page. After much feedback, I've decided that I'll no longer be going through with a separate page altogether but will instead add substantially to the "Women in Engineering" page. This article could use some serious revision given its significance to feminism and women's technical achievements throughout time. I believe I'll keep most of the previous layout the same, but I'll just be sure to exclude the science part and focus exclusively on engineering. And I won't focus too much on college women but rather women engineers as a whole. I hope this is better and certainly not too narrow. And as always, I'll be open to suggestions and help along the way.

J hernan26 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)J hernan26

That sounds like a good idea. Plus you'll get a lot more people reading your work at Women in Engineering! Kaldari (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke

I was apalled to see Sandra Fluke was nominated for deletion. It seems ironic that so many people want to silence her voice in International Women's Week. See my comments on the deletion page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that a decision was made to delete the page on Sandra Fluke, so that she only apears in Wikipedia as a victim of Rush Limbaugh. The question is - is this a gendered decision? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring and Expanding "Human Trafficking in Nepal"

I want to notify the members of WikiProject Feminism for my proposed rewriting of the article "Human Trafficking in Nepal", and invite comments and suggestions!

Human trafficking is one of the most prevalent and atrocious abuses of human rights in our world today. According to a conservative estimate by the International Labor Organization, around 2.4 million people -- overwhelmingly women and girls-- are currently in forced labor or sexual slavery as a result of trafficking. Though both sexes are affected, women and girls are the overwhelming majority of trafficking victims; this is clearly yet another manifestation of stark inequality in women’s rights, respect, and opportunities. A variety of social forces such as misogyny, lack of women’s rights and autonomy feed into the phenomenon. These social problems are especially rampant in South Asia, and the case of Nepali trafficking is particularly fascinating to study due to the country’s deeply-rooted gender inequality, notable poverty, low development, and prevalence of trafficking. With increasing international attention, the need for reliable, accessible information has become even greater. The public should have access to credible, non-sensationalized information in an organized, professional format that looks critically at the issue from multiple angles, but the current Wikipedia page on "Human trafficking in Nepal" is flagged for inadequate objectivity, citations, and Wikification. I plan on restructuring and editing the article through synthesizing multiple credible sources supported by academic research. I plan to objectively explore the realities of trafficking in Nepal, causes and drivers on both the supply and demand sides, interventions from the Nepali government, the international community, and NGOs, and roadblocks and success of these efforts. Such a pressing issue in women’s rights and human rights in our present day deserves informed dialogue rooted in evidence, and hopefully this edited article will be an important step toward this direction.

Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated! Thanks! Jennyxwen (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision and Expansion of "Prenatal Care"

I am revising and expanding the Prenatal Care Wikipedia article. The current Wikipedia page is limited to discussing only the issue of prenatal care in relation to race and ethnicity while glancing over the role that socioeconomic plays in the quality and accessibility of prenatal care services. The page is listed as an article in need of cleanup in order to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. My revisions will include reformatting this article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. My expansion of the article will include a new subtopic entitled "Prenatal Care and Accessibility." This subtopic will expand on the issue of the accessibility of prenatal care services (issues over both lack of knowledge, and availability of prenatal care services), focusing on low-socioeconomic areas. Accessibility of prenatal care services has a considerable impact on lives of women. The article is currently assigned to WP Medicine. However, due to the relationship between prenatal care and women's health, I believe that the article might fall under WikiProject Feminism as well.

I hope to spread knowledge of the social issues dealing health care services- specifically prenatal care and its relation to low-socioeconomic women.

I have gathered academic resources which I would use to expand the article. I was wondering if any WikiProject Feminism members have further resources that could possibly assist in my revisions and expansion. Any feedback over this particular page is greatly appreciated. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy International Women's Day

Our hot articles list is full red! Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

160 edits	Sandra Fluke
46 edits	Marie Stopes
39 edits	International Women's Day
23 edits	Sex and psychology
21 edits	Men and feminism

Feminist economics

I am planning to contribute to the existing page on feminist economics. Feminist economics is a vital field in which feminist theory is actively applied to a pre-existing field. Feminist economics combats androcentric biases in traditional economics, seeking improved outcomes for both women and men through these changes. While feminist economists work in all areas of economics, many especially focus on areas that might interests feminists like gendered household bargaining, care work, women's roles in the labor market, gendered wage gaps and more.

The current feminist economics page is a start, but would greatly benefit from substantive additions, reorganization and, perhaps most importantly, an increased focus on theory. Such changes would better represent the scholarly depth of feminist economics and would provide a better representation of the contributions of feminists to the field of economics.

In order to achieve this I plan to draw heavily on the three volume Feminist Economics series edited by Benería, May and Strassmann, released in 2011. The volumes are broken into three parts 1) Feminism, Economics, and Well-Being 2) Households, Paid and Unpaid Work and the Economy and 3) Global Perspectives on gender. It seems that a presentation along these lines may be more fruitful in presenting a broader and more accurate illustration of the breadth of feminist economic inquiry. These works also provide a multitude of collected journal articles and book chapters that I plan to draw on as references (a lacking feature of the current article). I hope that through this work the feminist economics page can be raised to a standard more equivalent to the traditional "economics" page that is focused on theory, clearly presented and inclusive of many citations.

I look forward to working on this project and would greatly appreciate any feedback, especially regarding feminist economics' relationship to broad feminist interests, theories and insights and other WikiProject Feminism pages to which the feminist economics page should link. Virginiawhite09 (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Expansion on "Water Scarcity in Africa"

I plan on editing the current article on "Water Scarcity in Africa" and would like to add it to WikiProject Feminism page. I will expand the current brief article to address how clean water scarcity effects health, opportunities for women, education, development, agriculture, and regional conflict. Most pertinent to WikiProject Feminism is how clean water scarcity in Africa effects the opportunities and education of women living in that region. In Africa, the task of locating and collecting water is almost always put on the shoulders of women and children in society, and as a result they spend up to 60% of their day focused on this task. This makes it impossible for many women to hold professional employment. Additionally, young girls are prevented from attending school upon reaching puberty because of a lack of latrines and sanitary water. Overall, clean water scarcity is an issue that effects all facets of development, and so its impact on the capabilities of African women is devastating. I would appreciate any comments from users concerning what should or should not be included in my expansion of the current article. Thanks so much! Hmccann Hmccann (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Updating the History of Abortion page

Hello! I am interested in updating the History of abortion page, which is a very important topic dealing with women's health and is especially pertinent in today's political climate. For being the main page about the history of abortion, this page is very undeveloped: It covers the medical aspect of abortion and the way society's views changed on the subject over the years, but it has little to nothing written about the effect of reproduction legislation on populations and focuses more on distant history than it does on more recent events.

I intend to focus on the section on abortion law, which at the moment is mostly a short summary and an incomplete timeline split up between two pages detailing reproductive legislation from around the world. I hope to include more historical information on past legislation, as it is not only not very well organized, but needs to be expanded upon. The Abortion Law page itself only talks about current abortion law, and the pages specializing in abortion in certain countries are also more focused on the present than they are on past legislation. No page goes into detail as to why these laws were implemented, how these laws affected a population, or why they may have been revoked. I plan to consolidate and link all of these pages to each other in order to eliminate redundancy and ensure cohesiveness, as well as provide more information on the effects of said laws in order to give a more holistic view of the situations they present. I will be focusing on Romania, China, and India, although other countries will probably be mentioned as well.

Does anyone have any suggestions for me in this endeavor? I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you! Scb3 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

For modern facts on abortion worldwide your first stop is the respected Guttmacher Institute's abortion page. This collection of studies is essential reading, but it will take some time to get through it all. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Occupational Segregation in WP:Feminism

I am planning on making substantial additions to the "Occupational Segregation" article as part of an assignment for my class on Poverty, Gender, and Development at Rice University. Occupational Segregation is a vital topic in economics because it results in numerous negative consequences not only for women, but also for families as units and for society as a whole. For those WIkipedians unfamiliar with the term Occupational Segregation, a bit of an explanation might be in order. Horizontal Occupational Segregation refers to segregation between occupations, and it allows for professions that consist of a majority of women to be remain both lower in status and lower in pay than other occupations. Vertical Occupational Segregation, in some cases known as ghettoization, refers to the relegation of women to the worse jobs within a given occupation. The "glass ceiling" that women face in their attempts to rise up a hierarchy and a pay scale is an example of vertical segregation. I plan on greatly expanding the "Types" and "Causes" sections of the article. In addition, I plan on adding a "Consequences" section and a "Social Policy Aimed at Eliminating Occupational Segregation" sections. I must admit, however, that my understanding of economics is somewhat rudimentary, and I would really appreciate any assistance that anyone might be able to give me on the specific economic concepts relevant to occupational segregation. I also joined WP:Economics for help on that specific issue. Any and all ideas/ suggestions/ feedback are welcome.

K Gagalis (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Honour Kilings in Pakistan

Hello all, I am editing and expanding the article on "Honour Killings in Pakistan." I am also adding minor edits to main "Honors Killings" article.

The current articles focus on the universal phenomenon of honor killings worldwide almost in a generic fashion, but it is important to be as culturally and country-specific as possible when constructing explanations for why and how honor killings persist. For example, in the article on "Honour Killings in Pakistan," I am hoping to include a section on the Pakistan legal system to show how government indifference to honor killings and gender bias in Pakistani law facilitate and spurs the likelihood of violence against women

Secondly, honor killings have been ostensibly sensationalized in the media. These media portrayals can be culturally reductive and invoke simplistic, civilizational thinking. And Western feminists who mean well can invariably uphold discourses that can be culturally divisive and polarizing, which is ultimately detrimental to the lives of Pakistani women. Thus, attention must be paid to formulating more nuanced and multidimensional questions to the phenomena of honor killings in Pakistan, such as: How do poverty and illiteracy make women the scapegoats of severe socio-economic problems? Why is the relationship between NGOs, feminism, and the Pakistani state so thorny?

Also, the current sources on both articles are of the journalistic variety. I am hoping to include more scholarly sources.

I would be grateful for any feedback and I am excited to contribute to this page.

Saimatoppa (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New article notice: Feminization of Agriculture

I plan on adding an article titled Feminization of Agriculture. Its going to focus on the recent (last 30 years or so) trends of gendered labor in the agricultural sectors of the undeveloped world. As the phenomenon has been focused there, i will discuss the trends and effects for primarily Africa and Latin America.

A discussion of this concept is very important as it has no coverage on the wikipedia yet has been studied for over twenty years! The economics of agriculture in these regions would make an important addition to the wikipedia's coverage. There are a number of important sociological developments in these sectors. I will include an analysis of the liberalization process and it's effects on the family dynamics in rural areas.

I have a few articles and books from which to derive the article, but there is always more to add, thus if there are any reputable sources that might be of benefit, I would be happy to include them. If you have any contributions to add feel free to comment or message. Thekappen (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Revising Water privatization page

I am a student in Gender and Economic Development in the Third World course at the University of Utah. I am considering revision to the Water privatization article to include impact of water privatization on women in developing countries. This issue is largely absent from this and other relevant pages, and I intend to update the page to address health and economic ramifications of water privatization specifically relating to women. I will as well include community response (women led) and some discussion of this issue's relation to the wider gender discourse. Any comments/questions/assistance is greatly appreciated. See the talk page of Water privatization for more detail. Bryancraven (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a valuable addition. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Measuring/Valuing Unpaid Work

I plan to write a Wikipedia article on the measurement and valuation of unpaid labor. I will include the different methods that feminist economists have proposed to accomplish this, as well as arguments for and against these quantifications. Data acquisition methods include: time use data, survey questions, in-depth interviews, diaries, participant observation, and the inclusion of multitasking. Some problems included in these methods are collecting accurate information, ease of comparability across societies, the lack of adequate universal language, and the complexity of domestic labor and the separation of unpaid labor categories.

The valuation methods proposed fall into several main categories: opportunity cost, replacement cost, input and output costs, and outputs of care. There are a host of different problems associated with these valuation methods, which include the difficulty of deciding which monetary levels are to be chosen for each of these methods, as well as the problems of using the market system to determine values.

This topic needs to be expanded on Wikipedia, as it is only minimally addressed under Feminist Economics, Theory and Methodology: Domestic Systems. On the Labor Force site, it does mention the issue briefly under Paid and Unpaid Labor: Unpaid Labor and Gender, as well as on the Work Intensity article page, as it is mentioned under Multitasking, and the Labor Economics site, under Criticisms of Labor Economics and Recent Research. Although on all of these sites unpaid labor is mentioned, it is only explained enough to say that it exists, and that the attempts to measure it exist as well. I plan on revising an existing article subsection, specifically: Feminist Economics, 2.1 Domestic systems, under 2. Theory and methodology of the Feminist Economics article. There are also multiple other articles which I will add a few sentences to, along with a link to the revised article (mentioned above).

I would like feedback on the general arguments for and against, and the other info I plan to include – perhaps some reference suggestions or just points to include that I may not have mentioned/did not know to include? Thanks!

Fmveblen (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Fmveblen

I assume this goes for volunteer work of all kind, including political organizing? (Of course, eventually some of that is "paid" in that "volunteers" get jobs when their candidate wins. An interesting valuation in itself!! Don't know if anyone's done any work on that, though I'm sure commentators have commented! CarolMooreDC 22:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Only 2 paragraphs about women in mathematics

I just discovered that Wikipedia only has 2 paragraphs about women in mathematics. Jeezy Creezy! Kaldari (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good project for the DC edit-a-thon friday - for those who know enough about math to know which women would be considered really important (as opposed to notable for whatever other tangential reasons). CarolMooreDC 05:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Inequality within immigrant families (United States)

I plan to write an article on the topic of "User:Naomi FK/Inequality within Immigrant Families (United States)." I hope to ultimately add this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism. There is a large body of research by feminist scholars in the areas of family, inequality, and immigration, which I will draw upon heavily when writing my article. I did a search and can find no existing Wikipedia entries that specifically cover either inequality within the family or the family dynamics of immigrants. Although there is extensive literature on many facets of social inequality, current Wikipedia articles tend to focus on inequalities between larger societal groups such as those based on socioeconomic status, gender, and race. When measuring inequalities in factors such as income and education, the family is often taken as a homogenous unit in which resources are distributed equally. Many scholars have pointed out that such an assumption is problematic since inequalities often exist within the family, often along gender lines. I wish to bring these inequalities to light, specifically focusing on the unique disparities that are often generated through the immigration process as the result of shifting gender roles and legal status. I would appreciate any feedback and look forward to contributing to this project. Naomi FK (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now posted my work so far on this article, Inequality within immigrant families (United States) Naomi FK (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Free Highbeam Accounts

The internet research database HighBeam Research has 1000 free accounts available. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikipedia. Here's the link to the project page: http://enwp.org/WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Feel free to sign up to help improve your work on this project's articles. CarolMooreDC 14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Revising and Expanding "Female Homicides in Ciudad Juarez"

Hello all! I am interested in revising the current article Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez. I wanted to open up the discussion of my proposed revision to the members of WikiProject Feminism. If anyone has any interest or knowledge on this issue, I welcome your feedback or input.

Since the early 1990's there have been hundreds of documented brutal murders of women and girls in the city of Juarez, Mexico. Many of these murders have been classified under the term, femicide. This issue sparked international feminist attention due to perceived inaction on behalf of police, city, and government officials. As expressed on the article talk page by several Wiki contributors, the current page on "Female Homicides in Ciudad Juarez" is vague and inadequate at explaining this complex issue. I plan to objectively analyze available information from the academic community on this issue and present it from a neutral point of view in a comprehensive manner. There are various factors involved in the violence against women in Juarez that have been analyzed in the academic community including the implementation of NAFTA, the maquila industry, gangs, and drug violence which I hope to explore in detail among others. This issue has already demanded international attention, I hope that the revisions I make to the current "Female Homicides in Ciudad Juarez" help to provide better information to the Wikipedia community on this important issue. Cnovoa17 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This definitely sounds like an article that needs in-depth research due to the complex issues involved. I would also recommend gutting the reactions section (which is basically just a long list currently) and limiting it to more thorough descriptions of the most notable reactions. Kaldari (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kaldari for your feedback, I definitely took it into consideration as I was revising! I did end up getting rid of the entire reactions section. I have revised the article Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez and I invite you and everyone else who is a member of WP:Feminism to read the revised version and continue to provide any constructive feedback you think might help strengthen the article. I hope the article makes a valuable contribution to the Wiki community and especially WP: Feminism!Cnovoa17 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluation of "Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez"

I recently edited the article Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez and would like to request a reevaluation of the article to be a part of WikiProject Feminism. Thank you very much! Cnovoa17 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Women in architecture

I've just put up a first draft of this article. I would particularly appreciate any help (editing, sources, suggestions) members of WikiProject Feminism can provide on the difficulties women have faced, and are still facing, in the world of architecture. In particular, any recent surveys or publications (especially over the past five years) on how women's role in architecture is evolving would be useful. As far as possible, I would like to have info on the world situation but obviously trends in the English-speaking world should be easier to find. Europe and Japan also deserve special attention. See the article's talk page for other areas to be developed.

There is one last item you can probably help with. I see many articles about the role of women in different areas carry a sidebar triggered by the template "Women in society sidebar". At the moment, architecture is not included. I would appreciate an architecture link to "Women in architecture" in the "Arts and humanities" section. - Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Forget the sidebar: I've managed to fix it myself. - Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dowry artcle

If anyone's interested in 3rd world feminism, it looks like the dowry article could use some work. Specifically it lacks any information on criticism of the practice or legal reform efforts. It also fails to mention dowry death or bride burning. Kaldari (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

List of feminist literature

I recently stumbled upon this page. It's a mess. I mention it here because it doesn't look like it really has any editors at this time, except me. And it needs them. Problems are that it has no consistent format--should it be just the name and author of books, or should there be a sentence or two for each on why the book/article is significant?; what books should be included--it needs about 1000 more; should it be divided by year--seems unwieldy; what is its purpose? Does it serve a purpose? I'd appreciate it if others joined in to help out with that page.QuizzicalBee (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I watch it but it's not an editing priority for me. Go for it. I'd argue for title and author only, and another detail only when needed to distinguish from an easily confused book that would not be on the list. A criterion for inclusion could be that there's an article on it or it's a major part of another article (such as an author article). Then a book description could be excluded on the ground that further information would be at the linked-to article, which would reduce the maintenance burden for this list when information might change. Chronological ordering is sensible since books often build on prior literature and other lists can reflect other groupings. Thanks for considering the list. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dell Summit

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Dell_Summit, a discussion that started on the gendergap list. If someone thinks the discussion should be at this WikiProject, feel free to move it here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Feminist sociology

I know of a book which should be included in the 'Further Reading' list on the 'Feminist Sociology' page.

Barbara Caine & Rosemary Pringle (editors) 1995, Transitions: New Australian feminisms, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW.

It includes articles by a number of influential Australian feminist theorists, including Ien Ang.

58.106.129.37 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Secular feminists

I've taken some online lists of secular feminists, merged them, and fixed various typos and name variants: see User:The Anome/List of secular feminists. Although most of the people on the list have articles, some are missing. Would anyone be interested in creating articles for those that fell through the gaps? -- The Anome (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Article for Deletion discussion: Stefania Wolicka

Not sure how to link to the AfD discussion, but it's here: [17] Wolicka was the first woman to get a PhD in modern Europe (1875), after universities in Switzerland starting admitting women in the 1860/70s. OttawaAC (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Women Internet Pioneers

Some of these women could do with new or improved articles. --Reagle (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Elizabeth J. Feinler
• Susan Estrada
• Judith Estrin
• Elise Gerich
• Susan Hares
• Sandra Lerner
• Radia Perlman
• Joyce K. Reynolds
• Virginia Strazisar

War on Women

I'm working on an article for the Republican anti-reproductive rights policy push that has been called the "War on Women". It's currently here and I'm looking for feedback before it goes live. The last one was deleted and I want to be sure this version doesn't make the same mistakes. Thanks, Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It does suffer a bit from WP:Recentism and a rather biased POV narrowly vs. Republicans for this election. The phrase has been used for a longtime by many women, including in book titles. See some examples with this books google search. News archive and scholar searches surely could find more. So I think the various significant uses of the term should be discussed and the current use should be no more than 1/2 the article. Otherwise you may get some strong opposition, complaints about WP:Undue and an AfD. Good luck! CarolMooreDC 03:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CarolMooreDC. I appreciate your insight. I wasn't sure whether previous uses of the phrase would fit into the scope of the article, as I'm sure people have used it to refer to different cultural/political phenomena. I wanted to capture the term in the sense that it is currently being used, which I think is referring more to the post-2010 elections. Perhaps I need a different title. Then again, the current raft of legislative initiatives is part of a trend that has been building for some time and can be best understood in that context. Off to research. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 04:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a more specific name would be better, soemthing like "War on Women" issue of 2012 election though I don't know if some would consider that too partisan a sounding article. I guess others will have to opine on that - or should I say WILL opine on that if they don't like it! CarolMooreDC 14:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To reduce recentism a bit, consider Melich, Tanya, The Republican War Against Women: An Insider's Report from Behind the Lines (1998 or before).

For context, there was discussion of the war between the sexes and the battle of the sexes and a contrary view that both sides weren't battling each other because women didn't have the means to, an arguable point.

The phrase war on women and close variants arose inside feminist discourse, more within radical feminist discourse, but not much elsewhere, to my knowledge; the phrases with between arose more from men as an ironic belittling of genderal disagreements but did not arise much in scholarship.

To avoid the criticism that not every slogan from one party against the other warrants an article, I'd present evidence that it was especially widely used or historically recognized, as was silent majority. Otherwise, it would qualify to be a redirect or a disambiguation page. And, if there's an article listing political attack slogans, this likely would fit.

I'd rename the Reaction section as Criticism, since other kinds of reaction are more or less throughout the article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I've posted the article at War on Women and welcome others to contribute. Cheers, Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 01:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The context helps, though as a radical antiauthoritarian female who easily could be indefinitely detained for crimes never described in a law signed by a Democrat and barely protested by any Democratic women, you'll have to pardon my disgust that the larger context of ALL males and patriarchy vs women is being ignored and partisan concerns expressed. If I was a Republican I'd be out to delete but not so shant. (That's who I meant by those who might object.) CarolMooreDC 02:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming and scope were and are significant hurdles with this article. The title doesn't have to stay; it seemed the common name and there wasn't anything to disambiguate it from at the moment. Still, this is one of many things deemed a "war on women" and this chapter is admittedly part of a much longer story (of the backlash against feminism, of the American birth control debate, and of patriarchy). I limited scope to avoid violating WP:SYNTH or duplicating current content. I'm open to expanding the background and providing more context. I think the current scope describes a real phenomenon that warrants a standalone article though. That said, there's lots of room for improvement here. While the legislation is being passed by one party, it is largely a push from advocacy groups and the text could better reflect that. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 04:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Describing special interest groups would help make it seem less like a partisan adventure. Just wish the phrase "Obama's War on Civil Liberties" had enough traction to support an article. :-( CarolMooreDC 09:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The War on Women article already had been deleted, which I didn't know, and so this new version also was deleted immediately. I don't see User:Gobonobo participating in the deletion discussion so I assume s/he didn't know. If you want to try again, emphasize the long history of the use of the phrase to deal with the WP:neologism issue and keep the recent partisan issue to no more than 20%. Then the editor who deleted it would have to approached in the proper manner, preferably with a few of us signing on to it. CarolMooreDC 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here, in case someone wonders why I was deleting and undeleting the article and talk page, that Ed Poor moved the page history when he userfied it in March, so I've moved it back and merged it. Gobono, this article was created on 8 March 2012 and deleted on 15 March: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women. The article you created is very different (see the old one at User:Ed Poor/War on Women), but even so you should check with the deleting admin, User:Wifione, whether you ought to take the article to deletion review first, rather than re-creating it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done just that. Thank you SlimVirgin. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As I predicted the article is up for AfD. There are legitimate criticisms of it, but deleting it would be absurd. CarolMooreDC 04:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I thought it would be relevant to note that there's a dispute resolution going on right now regarding the article. Please abide by WP:Canvass for the dispute resolution as that is not my intention.

For discussion see:

• Talk:War_on_Women#.22Attack.22.2F.22Used_by_democrats.22_in_lead CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Men

Hey, two things:

• I'd like input on my split and merge proposal on men and feminism; it's been three weeks and no-one's contributed, but I don't know exactly to proceed.
• I think the Men's rights article needs a cleanup and neutralising, because it seems to be mostly from a "hurr hurr women are such bitches" viewpoint that killed off the female privilege article (thank god). Again, the way to neutralise it comes under this project more than anything, I think.

Thanks! :) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

feminist categories

Hi - can someone explain the difference between:

• Category:Feminism books
• Category:Feminist books
• Category:Books about feminism

Are three categories really needed here? --KarlB (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

These should be consolidated into:

• Category:Feminist books - Books expressing a feminist ideology
• Category:Books about feminism - Books exploring the topic of feminism either from a neutral or critical stance

Kaldari (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Explanation: people don't research existing categories before create new ones. Solution above: go for it!! CarolMooreDC 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

60 pages are still in the Feminism books category. Is this proposed move (to Category:Feminist books) still ok? --EarthFurst (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Those articles should to be put in Category:Feminist books or Category:Books about feminism as appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging them all into Category:Feminism books seems a good option to me. The other tow have few articles and have been recently created. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Feminism books" is too ambiguous. Are anti-feminist books "feminism books"? Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As an analogy (perhaps not the best one), we have Category:Fascist books, Category:Anti-fascist books, and Category:Books about fascism. So really we should have...

• Category:Feminist books -> pro-feminist
• Category:Anti-feminist books -> anti-feminist
• Category:Books about feminism -> neutral in tone, with perhaps the other 2 included as subcategories

Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

List of African-American firsts

You are invited to visit the article's talk page and comment on inclusion criteria. Zepppep (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot

Please help improve the Pussy Riot article. It's currently prominently featured on the main page. Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn, yesterday while in the Castro there were posters saying "Free Pussy Riot," I even thought about taking a photo and got too busy to do so. What types of improvements do you think it can use? SarahStierch (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is weird. And it's CC BY A ha ha! SarahStierch (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The main thing that needs to be done is digesting all the international press coverage into Pussy Riot#International reaction. Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And people need to keep the pro-Putin editors from adding irrelevant nonsense such as "she was x months pregnant at the time" to the article. Bad enough these neo-Stalinists have locked away innocent women without they take over Wikipedia as well. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...the entire "orgy" conversation is totally unnecessary and makes me uncomfortable, too. :-/ SarahStierch (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Women academics ---> Female academics

Please share your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_6#Category:Women_academics -- SarahStierch (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Feminist publications and sub-categories?

An article that is in a sub-category of Feminist publications should not be in Feminist publications category?
Camera Obscura (journal) is in category (Feminist publications) and subcategory (Feminist magazines). As a journal, remove from Feminist magazines and keep in Feminist publications?
Girl Germs is in Feminist magazines category. As a zine, move to Feminist publications category? --EarthFurst (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would probably put Feminist journals and Feminist magazines directly under Feminist publications, and make the changes you suggest to Camera Obscura (journal):

• Feminist publications
  • Feminist journals
    • Camera Obscura (journal)
  • Feminist magazines

However I think zines are probably OK under magazines. Kaldari (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

move Camera Obscura article?

Article about feminist publication currently at "Camera Obscura (feminist magazine)". But the publication is apparently a journal and not a magazine. Should article be moved? "Camera Obscura (journal)"? "Camera Obscura (periodical)"? --EarthFurst (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The proper title would be Camera Obscura (journal). Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. In the spirit of boldness I've moved the article. --EarthFurst (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Add WikiProject Magazines tag to Camera Obscura's talk page? (Wondering since various articles in Category:Feminist magazines not tagged.) --EarthFurst (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Seems reasonable. Kaldari (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I meant "Add WikiProject Feminism tag to Camera Obscura's talk page?" For the time being I'll assume adding Feminism tag also reasonable. --EarthFurst (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

U of U Professor Ditches Term Papers for Wikipedia Articles

"Last spring, Berik’s Gender and Development graduate students contributed 15 new articles, covering an array of topics from women’s education in Pakistan to health in Uganda. She says one of her goals is to increase the number of women authors contributing to Wikipedia, as well as expand the site’s gender and race-related articles." Read the whole (short) article here. -- SarahStierch (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender in English

Just looking at this article, and noticed that the introduction refers to feminists wishing to reduce the extent of gender reference in language, but then the remainder of the article makes no mention of this aspect of the topic. Is anyone able to fill in? Thanks, Victor Yus (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Added some info. Not much, but a small section. There's a different article with more extensive information (Gender neutrality in English) which I've now linked to from the article Gender in English. Hope that helps. OttawaAC (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Two Croatian women's groups articles need work

B.a.B.e. is up for deletion cause still needs to be fleshed out from multiple sources. Women's Network Croatia only as one ref so is just asking for AfD. In case anyone wants to take on a worthy project :-) CarolMooreDC 17:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mothers' rights movement Move

(The following appears to have been originally posted September 1, 2012. The omission of the date from the original sig block appears to have been erroneous. This retrospective date information is added now to support archiving. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC))

A discussion of a move of Mothers' rights to Mothers' rights movement has been opened here--Cailil ^talk

Marie Curie

I've expanded this article to GA. I see it is not within the scope of your project; I think a good case could be made that is should be. If somebody from your project would like to expand the article with her importance in women's history and feminist perspective, I'd appreciate it; I think the article is currently lacking a little in those regards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Three women categories proposed for deletion

The following 3 categories have been proposed for deletion:

Category:Constitutional court women judges

Please share your thoughts here Ottawahitech (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Another category proposed for deletion is:Category:Female Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Category:Female Wikipedians has lots of keeps. But only two women in the category, and I just joined. So feel free to do so and to add the user box to your use page, which I also just did. CarolMooreDC 19:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Birth control

Birth control is easy and very important to improve. Please see Talk:Birth control#Reviews on the topic in the Lancet this month through Talk:Birth control#Comparison. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's easy but I agree it is appropriate to improve the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – made GA \o/ —Cupco 20:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Here is a discussion regarding renaming Category:Women foo to Category:Female foo. Thank you. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian perspectives on abortion: 3 issues

As we may have noticed, there was a long community discussion leading to changing the "pro-choice" article to Support for the legalization of abortion and the "pro-life" one to Opposition to legal abortion. An editor came along to the above article and started restructuring it in such a way that made me realize that given this new dichotomy - and given libertarians' obsession with what is and isn't illegal - this seemed the best way to group the arguments. So I changed the section headers to those titles and grouped material under them. He doesn't like it, but I'm really a bit unclear on his arguments.

He also is a relatively new editor who doesn't quite understand that you can't use advocacy articles written by non-expert advocates that promote original research about the views of well known individuals, which is what he wants to do.

He did raise the issue of "conflict of interest" since I do run the web page of the libertarian pro-choice page and did quote its views in the article years ago and hadn't thought about having done so since. (The pro-life libertarian group also is amply quoted on its views by people who I'm sure support them.) So people opining if I have a conflict of interest would help, since frankly I'm not sure! Please feel free to see the talk discussion and opine on any of the above. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 06:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: COI issue resolved; the editor left before the other one resolved -- after I realized he had some good points. But now lost energy to do something about it. CarolMooreDC 18:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Any post-structuralists out there?

Is anyone here a post-structuralist (third-wave) feminist? I have some questions. First, do you believe that intrinsic individual freedom is limited? If so, how? And where can I read more about that idea? This came up in a source for Feminist existentialism and I'm curious about the extent to which the critical characterization is true. —Cupco 21:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Searching "individual freedom is limited third wave feminism" in books and scholar google, got some interesting results. Give it a try. CarolMooreDC 18:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, so per [18] it's more about striving to increase freedom as opposed to simply needing to recognize it into existence. That makes sense now. —Cupco 18:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Editing the bride burning page

As a part of my Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities minor at Rice University, I'm required to find and edit a page that concerns class discussion material, which, as you can probably assume, often centers around human rights issues in underdeveloped countries. For this assignment, I chose bride burning, a topic that is both grotesque and fascinating and especially deserves more worldwide attention.

In order to combat such the global ignorance surrounding this topic, I chose this topic so that even one person can read, learn and attempt to eradicate bride burning all over the world. Unfortunately, currently the article is extremely limited, with only an introduction and one section on bride burning in South Asia and a subsection on India and Pakistan each. There is no history section (which should describe what exactly is bride burning and why it came to be prevalent in modern society), no mention of it existing in other parts of the world and no discussion on what is being done to combat the practice. Each of these sections are necessary to understand the full gravity of what bride burning does to women, their families and the cultures of affected nations. Over the course of the semester, I will take advantage of the many resources available on this tabooed subject in order to expand and ultimately reform readers' thoughts on bride burning.

WikiProjectFeminism, I'm sure, has many resources and tips available to help me as I revise this article. I would especially like some help on how to stay neutral with such dramatically biased topics. I have many sources so far from scholarly journals, but I would also like any help from contributors here with knowledge about certain sources I can use to better the page. Please leave feedback here, on my talk page or on the bride burning talk page whenever you can!

Thank you in advance for helping and being patient with me as I go through the dramatic revision of this article.

Ellyhutch (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A fine choice for your project; lots of work needed on that important article.

Regarding your aim to eliminate or reduce the occurrence of bride burning, Wikipedia can help only by describing the topic as accurately as possible. You can show how people are affected, you can give quotes from observers, and you can make sure the horror is clear to the reader. However, you cannot tell the reader what to do. We are descriptive, not prescriptive. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edits Reproductive justice

As another student in Rice University’s Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class and a new member of the Wiki community, I want to introduce myself and discuss improvements I would like to make to the WikiProject Feminism article entitled Reproductive justice. Although the existing article differentiates well between reproductive health, reproductive rights, and reproductive justice, I want to emphasize the latter’s unique role in promoting the welfare of women.

I would address first the issues of the article highlighted by the Wikipedia community, namely the page’s lack of perspective or global consideration. I’d also like to expand the short article introduction and add information from international sources such as the United Nations to contribute to the balance and depth of each subsection. Finally, I want to include a subsection examining the reproductive justice movement in Latin America as a case study. More specific edits that I intend to make can be found on the article’s talk page, but I would appreciate any feedback you think might guide my aims and edits. As a new contributor, I could use all the advice you want to share with me. Thank you for your help!

Nlaza (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing the Double burden page

Although I respect the effort that was put into creating the "Double burden" article, I think there is room for improvement. For a class assignment, I plan to revise the article. My tentative plans are as follows:

• include a subsection about the sexual division of labor under the history section
• edit "Pre modern day" and "Modern day" into "Pre-WWII" and "WWII-modern day"
• shift "Health effects of the double burden" farther down as a subsection under a section called "Effects of the double burden"
• I want to keep the section about "Gender differences", which is the main argument behind the double burden or the second shift. As Lyn Craig states in "Is There Really a Second Shift, and If so, Who Does It? A Time-Diary Investigation", "Women do work a second shift in the sense of having a greater workload than men, not just doing a greater share of domestic work. Mothers have greater workloads than fathers because they are doing more work activities at any one time, and also because more of their non-work activities are combined with the care of children" (166).
• add a section about the effects of racial differences on the double burden with subsections of "White families" and "Minority families"
• add a section about the effects of economic differences on the double burden with subsections called "Middle-class families" and "Non-middle-class families", which would include the poor and the wealthy
• eliminate the current 4th ("Types of double burdens") and 5th (Single vs married parents") sections
• add a section called "Family structure" with subsections called "Nuclear families", "Non-nuclear families", which would include single parent households, "Heterosexual couples", and "Homosexual couples"
• excluding "See also", "References", and "Further reading", the last section would be the above-mentioned "Effects of the double burden" with a subsection about "Health effects"

Thus far, these are some sources that I have:

• Chafetz, Janet Saltzman, Jacqueline Hagan. 1996. “The Gender Division of Labor and Family Changes in Industrial Societies: A Theoretical Accounting”. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 27:187-219.
• Craig, Lyn. 2007. “Is There Really a Second Shift, and If so, Who Does It? A Time-Diary Investigation” Feminist Review. 86:149-170.
• Eichler, Margrit, Patricia Albanese. 2007. “What is Household Work? A Critique of Assumptions Underlying Empirical Studies of Housework and an Alternative Approach”. The Canadian Journal of Sociology. 32:227-258.
• Gimenez-Nadal, Jose Ignacio, Almudena Sevilla-Sanz. 2011. “The Time-Crunch Paradox”. Social Indicators Research. 102:181-196.
• Greenstein, Theodore N. 1996. “Husbands’ Participation in Domestic Labor: Interactive Effects of Wives’ and Husbands’ Gender Ideologies”. Journal of Marriage and Family. 58:585-595.
• Ruijter, Esther de, Judith K. Treas, and Philip N. Cohen. 2005. “Outsourcing the Gender Factory: Living Arrangements and Service Expenditures on Female and Male Tasks”. Social Forces. 84:305-322.
• Short, Susan E., Frances K. Goldscheider, and Berna M. Torr. 2006. “Less Help for Mother: The Decline in Coresidential Female Support for the Mothers of Young Children, 1880-2000”. Demography. 43:617-629.
• Silver, Hilary. 1993. “Homework and Domestic Work”. Sociological Forum. 8:181-204.
• Torr, Berna Miller, Susan E. Short. 2004. “Second Births and the Second Shift: A Research Note on Gender Equity and Fertility”. Population and Development Review. 30:109-130.

In total, there would be 9 sections starting with "History of the double burden" and ending with "Further reading". While I realize that my above plans are very watered down and a bit ambitious, I think they could improve the existing article. Therefore, I invite members to please offer constructive criticism, helpful readings, etc-anything to help me improve this page. ThatRavengirl (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi ThatRavengirl. Normally I would advise students against improving articles that are already at Good Article status, but I believe that your plans could result in an overall improvement the article. Your references look good and I like most of your planned revisions. When discussing racial differences, it is important that the article maintain a worldwide view. If you are going to discuss racial differences, take care not to make blanket statements that may be true in one country but are not in another. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 05:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it within this project's scope?

Hi everyone. I recently came across the article Rochdale sex trafficking gang and I have a feeling that it might be within this project's scope. Is it? I wanted to make sure before I put up the banner there. If it is not within this project's scope, could someone suggest some other women's related project which might have an interest in that article? Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think sex trafficking is within this project's scope. I've added banners for the Crime and Sexuality WikiProjects as well. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the the response Gobonobo. And for putting up the banners too. They sure help. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Birth rape

This project may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Birth_rape. Warden (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Reminder on Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Article alerts‎

Watch the page (make the star blue) cause some interesting stuff asking for Good article comments or articles for deletion comments, etc. often comes up. CarolMooreDC 16:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Revision to Nancy Folbre

The list of ongoing projects seems to center on biographies. Nancy Folbre has been an important an active voice for feminist economic issues - in particular, the recognition of and accounting for care work in economics. The current page is rather thin and needs to be expanded. She is a very prolific writer and I'd like to include summaries of her major works. If I can find reliable resources, I'd like to expand her biographical entries as well. Finally, I'd like to link her page to other relevant pages. Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated. Marsge01 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Creation of a page that documents rape comments during the 2012 election

I would suggest that this would be a useful page. It could be created out of the backbone of the Todd Akin article. As such I have started a merge discussion here.Casprings (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions and New Entry: Gender Inequality in Thailand

Hello everyone,

I am currently working on a term paper for my Gender Economics class. My topic is about Gender Inequality in Thailand which will mainly focus on the context of gender division of labor in labor market. I am planning on starting my article by pointing out the problem of gender inequality from various perspective based on the gender inequality indicators in order to build up the understanding of the situation in Thailand. I will then present, in detail, the gender in equality in labor market in several aspects such as gender wage gap, employment rate, etc. I would be appreciate if you guys can help me with the sources of data of further idea of what else should be included, or not included, in the article or what other indicator(s) I shall present in my article.

So far I have gathered some information from world bank website. Some of my literatures include:

Kampon Adireksombat, Fang Zheng, and Chir Sakellariou. The evolution of gender wage differentials and discriminations in thailand: 1991-2007. In Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series, number 2010/05. Economic Growth Centre, 2010.

George Gray Molina and Mark Purser. Human development trends since 1970: A social convergence story, 2010.

Social Institutions & Gender Index. Gender equality in thailand. http: //genderindex.org/country/thailand, 2012. [Online; accessed 28- September-2012].

I am sure I need a lot more citations to make a good article and I would be appreciate if any of you could provide me some suggestion(s).

Thank you very much. Econkc (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As an example, you may want to look at Feminism in Russia, which was recently promoted to Good Article status. Kaldari (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur. An existing article such as Feminism in Russia demonstrates what we like to see in regards to the level of detail and number of references. For your topic, you have some options. You could add a section to Women in Thailand on inequality in the labor market. Alternatively, you could create the new article Gender inequality in Thailand's labor market or Gender inequality in Thailand (though the latter article would be broader than your focus). Your literature looks to be good start. These sources also looked promising to me: Gender, values, and intentions to move in rural Thailand and Occupational segregation and gender discrimination in labor markets: Thailand and Viet Nam. Let me know if you need any assistance. Cheers, Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 22:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm still working on the literature reviews and data collection. You advice and recommended article are very helpful.

Econkc (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have finished my article and you (and others who interest in the topic) could be able to see it. The title of the article is gender inequality in Thailand. I would be glad to here any feedback since this is my first wiki article. Thank you for your previous advice.

Econkc (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing important article

I'm not a member of this project, but I went to look up Eliza A. Swain and found we have no article on her. This is a serious omission, surely? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about her name. We have Louisa Ann Swain, which seems to be the same person unless I'm mistaken. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Gender wage gap in Russia Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)

I am planing to write a new article on the gender wage gap in Russia. I believe that it is advisable to pay special attention to the case of Russia (and maybe other post Soviet republics) if one wants to understand in more depth the reasons for the emergence of wage gaps and apply correct policies for its eradication. Why Russia?

• Justification: Even though the education achievements of women in Russia are higher then those of men and their participation in the labor market is roughly equal to the male participation, the wage gap in this country is persistent and substantial. Russia’s case therefore becomes of particular interest as it preaches that policies which target only an increase in women's level of education and their participation in the labor market might not be very helpful in decreasing the gender wage gap if not accompanied by more activist policies; policies which would fight against the stereotypes of the male/female division of labor and the discriminatory practices employed at the work place as well as within the family.

A very rough outline of the planned content is as follows:

• Section 1: short description of the concept of the wage gap
• Section 2: the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition of the wage gap
• Section 3: Evolution of the wage gap in Russia
• Section 4: analysis of the wage gap in Russia according to the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition.
• Section 5: Russia’s official’s position in regard to the wage gap

Any comments or suggestions would be very welcome. Thank you.

Corinabesliu1965 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Corina Besliu

I think that Wikipedia would be improved through the addition of an article discussing the gender pay gap in Russia. We already have an article for the gender pay gap in Australia. Be sure to write for the lay reader (most of our readers will not be familiar with Blinder-Oaxaca decompositions). Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 05:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Jessie Stephen

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jessie Stephen#Request for verification of a few points. -- Trevj (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Feminist critiques of science

The section Criticism_of_science#Feminist_Critiques has been the subject of edit wars. It is being discussed at Talk:Criticism_of_science#feminist_critique. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Feminism in Germany Page

Hi, I'm starting an article on Feminism in Germany. Please feel free to contribute to the draft in my sandbox. I'm new to Wikipedia so thank you for any suggestions. I am eager to learn, so feel free to send any tips, etc. Mk30 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Playtex

I'm working on the article on Playtex and would like to bring it up to GA eventually, but not sure it's quite ready yet. Would appreciate anyone who cares to give it a second pair of eyes, fill in any gaps and offer feedback. User:CorporateM 15:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of broadening definition of "fringe" topics/writers/bios/etc

At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE. About twice as many people in favor. Sounds like impending censorship to me, imposed over the holidays yet, including regarding topics/writers/bios/etc. often covered in this Wikiproject. CarolMooreDC 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Suzy Favor-Hamilton#Price issue

Could someone please take a look? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Slow conflict at Womyn

I've opened a section at Talk:Womyn in response to a slow but persistent edit conflict. This is mainly to establish a space for users who keep making the same unexplained changes to explain themselves, but I mention it here for the benefit of anyone who happens to watch the article for vandalism. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Better late than never opening up a talk section. If AnonIps keep reverting without talking, try to get the page protected for a month. CarolMooreDC 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wonder Woman be a part of the Wikiproject Feminism?

I think that the article Wonder Woman should be a part of Wikiproject Feminism as Wonder Woman is a known and popular feminist icon. In fact, Wonder Woman is notably mentioned in the article Feminist science fiction, but that article is also not included in the feminism project. In my opinion, both articles have some relevance to the Feminist project and should be added to it. Wonder Woman in my opinion is an important part of feminism and should be added at either High impo. or mid impo. to the project. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Added. Kaldari (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Recently saw an article about this, When Gloria Steinem and Samuel Delany clashed over Wonder Woman. Delany described the villains the heroine would face - "the first was a corrupt department store owner; the second was the head of a supermarket chain who tries to squash a women's food co- operative. Another villain was a college advisor who really felt a woman's place was in the home and who assumed if you were a bright woman, then something was probably wrong with you psychologically, and so forth. It worked up to a gang of male thugs trying to squash an abortion clinic staffed by women surgeons. And Wonder Woman was going to do battle with each of these and triumph." It's a pity that only one issue of the series was created. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is 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 16:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)