Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:49, 11 June 2008

Gender studies NA‑class

This page is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this page, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gender studies: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-08-05 This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Gender studies NA‑class This page is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this page, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention I need the help of an administrator!! I need the help of an administrator on an article involving a women's health issue. A male doctor is deleting the info provided by female doctors. If there is an administrator who can help, please contact me Drzuckerman 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) You don't need an administrator. Just restore the information from the article's history, if you believe it to be pertinent, or discuss the situation with the editor in question. Owen 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Possessive Terminology? I'm not sure how using the terms wife/husband is necessarily possessive. It's noun describing a relationship. If I'm someone's sibling, parent or friend, I am not their property. Why does marriage necessarily indicate ownership? Certainly, the expression "man and wife" does suggest ownership, but "husband and wife" (or "husband and husband" for that matter) does not, does it? - TheMightyQuill 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I agree with TheMightyQuill. "Possessive Terminology" is simply a way of specifying relationships in standard English. Other examples include "sister of", "father of", "employer of", "friend of", "enemy of", and far too many more to list here. In none of these cases does it reasonably imply actual ownership. Neitherday 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC) There are 2 related reasons for this: First when an article is a about Hillary Clinton she should be privelaged over her spouse since the article is about her. So for instance "Hillary Clinton, the wife of former president Bill Clinton," - is incorrect as a leader or as the first line of a section. Because it actually erodes Hillary's (the subject's) notability. The article needs to be written (a little po-faced, I'm afraid) rigorously only citing personal deatils where notable. Yes Hillary is Bill's wife but the subject's own notability always comes first. Second Possessive Terminology does imply ownership because, as above, it privelages one relationship over another, which is a POV based writting choice. The guide refers to marriage, which turns Ms Hillary Rodham into Mrs William Clinton, just as TheMightyQuill illustarted with the "man and wife" example. The point is such a "styling" or characterizing of a subject tends towards POV because it does not focus on the subject's own notability and once again it does imply ownership. I don't interpret the guide to imply any form of censorship whatsoever (if it did I'd oppose it) - it is not asking for an exclusion of marriage inormation but rather the proper placement of that info within the article showing correct regard for the subject's notability. P.S. Apologizes for the references to Hillary she was the best example I could think of on the spur of the moment--Cailil 14:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC) What you are saying seems more reasonable. The Hillary Clinton article more appropriately would state "Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton...", as Hillary is the primary focus not Bill. However the statement on the to do list read: "Possessive Terminology: Referring to someone as the wife of (or husband of) someone implies possession of them by their husband or wife. Terminology such as is married to restores the person's humanity, and keeps the focus on the person being described.", which is something quite different than you are talking about. Neitherday 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I'm not as far off the guide as you might think Neitherday, when I said ""styling" or characterizing of a subject tends towards POV because it does not focus on the subject's own notability" I am including "referring to someone as the wife of (or husband of)". In the line: "A is married to B" such a POV or privelaging does not take place - that in my interpretation is the essence of the guideline. Just a BTW the gudielines have been moved to a new department for "countering systemic gender bias"--Cailil 13:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC) There is no POV or privelaging taking place in "referring to someone as the wife of (or husband of)" any more than in "friend of" or "enemy of". Neitherday 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• WT:GS

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Template:WikiProject Gender Studies Navigation

Women and History

I'm not a part of this project but while looking about for some good models to start a History of women in Australia article, I've really struggled in finding one. The History of women in the United States article seems to be a good example of the problem as I see it. It is pretty much a history of feminism and any information outside of that is limited to a feminist analysis of "roles" etc, without much context (historical or philosophical) provided. The Women's History article which purports to be "a history of female human beings" begins with the section "rights and equality" which an extremely ahistorical (and western-biased) place to start. Feminism is, after all, an -ism and as such the weight it appears to be given in articles relating to women and history (which seem to be just the tip of the iceberg) is a serious problem in terms of presenting an npov. The presence of the feminism infobox in these articles is itself, imo, evidence of bias. As a feminist myself, I am concerned by this as the conflation of feminism and female simply further marginalises women and reduces this subject area to the femin(ist) sphere. A history of women (whether general or limited by class/ethnicity/nationality etc) should be balanced by context and adhere to the historical method. Internal wikilinks can easily provide relevant feminist analyses.
I just wanted to voice this opinion here (which I hope does not offend) because I believe that it relates to your goals as to what this project is not. I believe that articles relating to feminism and feminist analyses of all subjects should be have their place in wikipedia but those articles should be titled as such (ie; "Feminist history in the United States") and not be represented as anything broader. And I believe that the Feminism infobox should be used only in articles relating to feminism, not articles related to women. baby_ifritah 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can see from teh goals and whatthis project is not that WP:GS is not about creating articles like the ones you have described. I believe you are correct to remove the feminism temlate. I would suggest you also create an alternative specifically for women's histories. There is one thing that complicates matters though, most books about women's history are feminist writings perhaps a section explaining this in such articles would be useful.--Cailil 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed category: Biology of gender

Hi everyone,

I propose we create Category:Biology of gender.

Main articles

Biology of gender

Causes of sexual identity

Member articles

Anne Fausto-Sterling

Brain Sex

David Reimer

de Lacoste-Utamsing

Defeminization

Dihydrotestosterone

John Money

Milton Diamond

Ralph Holloway

Sex differences

Sexual differentiation

Steven Goldberg

Testosterone poisoning

The Inevitability of Patriarchy

Virilization

Why Men Rule

--Kevinkor2 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the category. Nice and interdisciplinary. There's a fair bit of related information across those articles, from quite a few different perspectives. I recommend you include Sexual dimorphism also. Perhaps Intersex, perhaps not. There'll be other articles people will find if you just go ahead and make the category. People can always remove articles from the category if they think they are not relevant. That's my 2 cents. Cheers. Alastair Haines 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Kevinkor2 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea sounds interesting and potentially useful, but it will be important to distinguish the biology of sex from the biology of gender. The biology of sex shades into the biology of gender, so keeping the two clear of each other depends on keeping a clear focus on what is central to each.

To be less abstract: We know what determines the ability of some individuals to produce sperm, the ability of other individuals to produce ova, and also the factors that preclude some individuals from producing either. That is sex in the "irreductible" sense. It is primarily established on the level of the genotype, but the genotype is not always expressed. Sometimes events in the womb prevent the expression of the genotype. That sexual identity has a definite effect on gender identity, but it is not the only effect.

If nothing happens to thwart the normal development of the genitalia, it is still possible to have the development of the brain become discordant with the genitalia. That is a biological development, usually driven by abnormal hormonal levels at a crucial point in brain development. "Brain sex" is biological and has its own impact on the gender identity of individual, but it is not clear that it can overcome all other impacts.

Learning is the factor involved with gender identity that is not biological, but it (always?) interacts with what is present biologically. John Money began his career by overgeneralizing from some experiences that indicated that children's gender identity can be determined by enculturation experiences. People in the field now seem to stress that in many cases brain sex trumps both genitalia and enculturation, but there may be cases where learning experiences throw the balance one way or the other. It may be that in considering the impact of learning experiences one has to take account of the phenotype of the individual.

These considerations are very important for some individuals trying to understand their own sexuality, for parents who want to understand why their child's behavior is inconsistent (in their view) with their child's genitalia, etc. So it is important to get these matters clearly and objectively described. However, there is probably so much remaining to be learned that it is necessarily difficult to pin down true cause and effect relationships. Concerned individuals need to understand that there is no certain guidance, and also that (issues of abuse aside) whatever happens is not somebody's fault or even their responsibility. P0M 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

This project began as front for gender-feminists and their flunkies who are pushing an in-credible ideological point of view on gender-related articles. This project is still coming from a reverse-sexist point of view but the project goals have been generalized to the point of meaninglessness so that no one can see point of the project now. This enables the usual 'feminista'-feminist 'subversions' because no one can hold anyone else accountable to meaningless criticia. I will be glad to pull this POV tag as soon as I see reverse-sexist statements in the project deleted, specific non-sexist NPOV goals for the project, and a welcoming attitude from project people for well-sourced content that is 'problematic' to gender-feminist ideologues.

Many credible feminist authors have shown the falsehood, fraud and misrepresentation related to gender-ginning scholarship by so-called 'gender'-feminists. Nathanson and Young show blatant reverse-sexist research on gender by feminist scholars in Legalizing Misandry. They also show how gender as a concept has been hijacked, perverted, and politicized for ideological warfare by feminists in academia and elsewhere.

To ignore these issues or to insist that only gender-ginning editors are allowed to contribute to the project's content/criteria is to pander to ideological feminist pov. Gender feminist rapes of reason are no less serious than those Al Gore illustrates in Assault on Reason. This project needs to aim at a NPOV, reason-able, and plausible take on gender to be a credible project.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.45 (talk • contribs).

Could you please provide some examples that support your claims? Perhaps it's because I'm new to the project, but I don't see any systemic "gender-feminist" bias being pushed. Cowpepper 12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I second Cowpepper's request for examples. Unless/until some are provided I'll ignore this complaint as the same baseless kind that pops up here periodically. (And always anonymously. Hmm.) --Alynna 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows the above comments from IP 128.111.95.45 were identified as trolling by the long-term vandal Anacapa. Since making these comments they have been banned. As noted by Cowpepper & Alynna, the comments are both baseless and time wasting - this user was in fact responsible for all of the periodic trolling comments left on this page since October 2006--Cailil 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think before the spinoff there were some issues (I brought one up here), but I don't see any POV issues any more... I think he's just ranting. David Fuchs 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn Museum of Art.

The Brooklyn Museum of Art has now opened its web pages on the 1979 work, The Dinner Party by artist Judy Chicago. This includes a database of the women featured in the work, in particular the 999 Women of Achievement depicted in the tiled floor.

I have transferred the list of names shown on the floor from the database to the Dinner Party article (although I fear the number does not reconcile with the 999 stated).

This now provides another list of articles of notable women which Misplaced Pages needs to develop. Needless to say more than half the links are red. Any help in turning these blue is welcome. Lumos3 09:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of these links simply need redirect pages. I've created a few, and will come back to it later. Cowpepper 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Genderfuck article

Hi, could someone please check out the Genderfuck article for consideration of this project. Thank you! Benjiboi 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Women by country articles

I encountered the new article Role of women in the Philippines and was curious if it formed part of a series, relating to various countries. It turns out there are some articles like Women in Iraq and Women in India, although there are some differences between focus on roles, social status, legal rights, etc. Is there any effort to make coverage and nomenclature of these articles systematic? Looking above, I also see there are History of women in X articles too. If the contents could be sorted out, it seems like it would be worthwhile and avoid systemic bias if there were articles with similar approach for all countries. Rigadoun (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed re-write of Feminism as per WP:SUMMARY

I'm proposing a re-write of Feminism into summary style. The discussion is at here at talk:feminism and the re-write page is in my user space here--Cailil 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This re-write is almost ready if any one has any comments please drop by the talk feminism discussion or the rewrite page

Peer review requested

Hi. Ruth Kelly is up for peer review here. Your comments are welcome. SP-KP 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Fl1942 prodding of articles

Fl1942 (talk · contribs) is prodding ("deleting") a lot of articles that are about women's organisations or that are critical of (child) prostitution, women trafficking and rape (National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape, Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee, All Bengal Women's Union, Tulasa, and others). Many of these articles are notable, so I have deprodded them. He has taken revenge on me by reverting all my edits (see this edit on Alice Bailey). Can someone else please keep a watch on future proddings? --Voidocore 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This message area isn't terribly active so you might do better by keeping watch yourself possibly reaching out to other editors on each of those articles and contact an administrator if they actually violate WP. As much work as it may seem each article has to stand on its own merits so if something comes up for AfD then rally more support to quickly address the most pressing issues. Improving articles is the best way to keep them. If the user seems to be disruptively editing then take it to admin for support and advice. Benjiboi 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the notability, or not, of these organizations it does seem that Fl1942 is editting tendentiously. The reverts, without explanation across a number of articles seem to be retaliatory. Contact a sysop about this--Cailil 15:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

TV pregnancies

Hi all, I started Pregnancy on television in my userspace. Originally I wanted to write about how TV deals with actresses who become pregnant (such as the Hunter Tylo case) and how TV either acknowledges or hides the pregnancy in the fictional universe of the show. However, I've also set aside space for reality pregnancy shows like the ones on Discovery Health. I would appreciate community comments before I finish it up and move it to article space. Thanks! Wl219 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender studies about Misplaced Pages

This is not clearly mentioned in this WikiProject's aims and non-aims: Is there any place where I can find gender studies about Misplaced Pages, both its articles and its contributors? For example, how many users are men/women, how many WikiProjects are headed by men/women, etc. Obviously the board of the Wikimedia Foundation is very strong in women, but does the same balance apply through all levels? If there are any imbalances, could there be any flaws in the design that should be addressed? Etc. I guess these questions fall outside of this WikiProject, but then, where do they fit? Any hints appreciated. I guess it would sort under m:Wikiresearch, but I didn't find anything there. --LA2 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well as far as I know there is no systematic research into the gender break-down of wikipedians - I'm not sure that it would be possible to undertake a completely accurate one since not all wikipedians reveal their gender. To be honest these are not a wikiproject's concern - wikiprojects look after articles. What you seem to be proposing is independent research the foundation itself may be interested in such a project--Cailil 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Portrayal of women in video games

I just wanted to alert this project to the fact that an article you tagged, portrayal of women in video games as an AFD on it, and if someone here wants to bring it up to acceptable quality they might consider rescuing it. -- AvatarMN 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope there is no gender / sex bais here

The first article appears to be a feminist proclamation. There are actual definitions far outside intended diatribe, and I am begininning to feel misandry. For instance when discussing feminists call for an end to patriarchy, their political position probably is from a singular point of view. BobV01 20:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipdia is not a forum and not a soapbox. Please read WP:TALK to see how to use a talk page properly.--Cailil 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which article is "the first article" that you're referring to? ➪HiDrNick! 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

comments removed by BobV01 have been reinstated. If you wish to retract a comment strike it by placeing it in between<s></s>. It is considered bad form to remove comments that have been quoted or replied to - see WP:TALK--Cailil 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ABBA could use a review

The artcle ABBA makes many references to the two female members of the group as "girls". I believe that the article would be improved if all or very nearly all of these references were replaced with a better term. -- 201.19.20.38 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this has been completed. Benjiboi 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Gender bias

Has the {{Gender bias}} template ever been used effectively for an article cleanup? Nothing is using it as this time. / edg ☺ ★ 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it has had no use yet. Apparently some sections in ABBA could use it though--Cailil 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's currently a Template for deletion. I'm leaning Delete since it seems unused. / edg ☺ ★ 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking for something like this template. There are gobs of places it could be used! However, I'd like to use one that is more collaborative-sounding and doesn't have an accusatory ring to it. Anyone know of something like a "Gender Inclusion Needed" template/tag? Thanks --Deebki 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Women writers deletion proposal

People may be interested in this debate: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_24#Category:Works_by_women_writers Johnbod 15:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Category advice wanted

I've just come across the following category structure. Category:Zimbabwean writers contains Category:Zimbabwean women writers. Tsitsi Dangarembga is only in the latter, Doris Lessing only in the former, and Yvonne Vera in both categories.

Obviously the categorising is incomplete, but how would one take this forward without redundant categorisation? The women are of interest to gender studies folk, but also key to Zimbabwe's literary history. It would be inexcusable (for multiple reasons) to make the higher cat the sole preserve of male Zim writers. Should we split the higher category into Category:Zimbabwean male writers and Category:Zimbabwean women writers, although the numbers are not conducive to this? Or should we lose Cat: Zim women writers in favour of Category:African women writers?

Sorry if this has been previously discussed - I can't suss it. JackyR | Talk 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert so just as a suggestion I would eliminate the minor gender categories in favor of just the writers one then on that category page simply note that these are female writers and update it until there is at least a handful to justify their own category. One is a lonely number! Benjiboi 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CATGRS, which says

"For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.) (See Category talk:Singers by gender for details on female and male singers by nationality categories.)"

The usefuluness and acceptability of women writer categories was established in numerous lengthy CfD discussions earlier this year, so the existence of the category is agreed, and there does not need to be a separate Category:Zimbabwean male writers.

As to categorising Zimbabwean women writers, there is a simple rule to apply: they should not be removed from any other appropriate category because they are in Category:Zimbabwean women writers. So a Zimbabwean female novelist should be in Category:Zimbabwean women writers and in Category:Zimbabwean novelists; but a Zimbabwean female essayist should be Category:Zimbabwean women writers and Category:Zimbabwean writers (because there is no Zimbabean essayist category).

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It does help, but leaves me struggling with the § after the one you quote:

"Whenever possible, a valid occupational subcategory should be structured and filed in such a way as to avoid "ghettoizing" people, but at the same time, Misplaced Pages rules about redundant categorization should also be respected."

Which is a nicely unhelpful statement if ever I saw one. I don't think creating lots of sub-cats is going to get us out, either, because a) the numbers are comparatively small and b) Yvonne Vera is not unusual in having written novels and short stories, produced publications for the National Gallery, and interviewed people for newspapers - so dividing by novelist/essayist/etc may not be appropriate.

Sorry if I seem to be looking for probs, but I don't do much cat work on en:wp, so am nervous of stuffing up. If you say shove 'em all in both Category:Zimbabwean writers and Category:Zimbabwean women writers, even tho these are mother & daughter cats, I'll go ahead and do so. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sure you ain't looking for probs, just trying to get your head around some rather complex conventions :) I'll try another way of explaining it, in case it's clearer.

1. put all the Zimbabwean women writers in Category:Zimbabwean women writers, and
2. also put them in either or both of Category:Zimbabwean novelists and Category:Zimbabwean poets, as appropriate
3. If they are in neither of Category:Zimbabwean novelists and Category:Zimbabwean poets, then also put them in Category:Zimbabwean writers

I hope that's a bit clearer than my first attempt. But don't worry too much if you get it wrong; wikipedia has strong no-biting rules :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of another, more succinct, way of describing the convention: categorise the person as if there were no gendered categories, and then add any appropriate gendered categories. So an Irish woman who writes modernist poetry would go in Category:Irish modernist poets, and then (adding gendered categories) in Category:Women poets and Category:Irish women writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's smart. And easy to remember :-) JackyR | Talk 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Never stopped me getting bitten! But many thanks, will do as above. Much appreciated, cheers, JackyR | Talk 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

help rescue article

Hi; the article Pregnancy in science fiction just avoided AFD. There's a germ of a very good article there dealing with the treatment of reproduction in fiction, but at present it's an unsourced list. Help editing would be appreciated, and I'm adding the project tag to the article. --lquilter 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement

I don't know if there is anybody interested in being involved in this article. It isn't a bad little effort, but it is not my area of expertise, (or interest in fact!) My role has mainly been to try balance the various POV editors who appear to try to massage the article more to their way of thinking, and I am getting tired of the role. In any case I welcome some additional voices who can help improve the article.--Slp1 12:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Slp1. I'll have a look and see if I can be of any help--Cailil 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Women athletes in ancient Greece

Gymnasium (ancient Greece) says: "in ancient Greece only men practiced sports". Sparta says: "a strong emphasis was placed on the physical fitness of men as well as women. Despite their physical fitness, women could not compete in the Olympic Games, according to the Olympic rules (they competed in the Heraea Games instead)." Heraea Games says: "The ancient Heraea Games, dedicated to the goddess Hera (also spelled Heraia) is the first sanctioned (and recorded) women's athletic competition to be held in Olympic Stadium." (etc.) -- We need to reconcile these. -- 201.19.77.39 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest making specific changes on appropriate articles and support with references if possible. If you get any grief ask for help as articles need to be accurate. Benjiboi 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gender and Judaism

There is a related article Role of women in Judaism whose development should probably be coordinated/merged/sub-main'd with this article. A topic has been created to discuss this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism#Gender and Judaism. Best to all, Egfrank 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Egfrank - will have a look--Cailil 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Women in politics

Hi! Women in politics is a current WP:ACID candidate. Expansions of the article (it was two sentences long when I found it) are welcome. Punkmorten (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Punkmorten. I'll try and help out there if I can--Cailil 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Female models nominated for deletion

The related Category:Female models has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Women in the professions

In part as a result of the discussion on the Female models CFD, I have begun a project to write articles on women in various professions. The first such article to discuss the topic generally and link to the sub-articles is Occupations, gender roles, and women's history - I drafted this much-needed article and it was promptly tagged original research (6 minutes after posting the item, tagged stub). I've been adding some of the numerous cites available on the topic. Please feel free to help out.

The larger context is that although these are all well-studied topics, some editors in wikipedia feel that categorizing female professionals (or ethnic professionals) as such is overcategorization. Consequently there have been numerous deletion discussions on Category:Female models, Women in science, Category:Women writers, and so on. Some categories (Category:African American scientists) have been deleted; others have survived. WP:CATGRS is the general guideline on the topic and it states that an intersectional category is appropriate where an article can be written about that topic. As I suspect most people involved in this project know, the history of women in various occupations (and the history of gendering of occupations generally) is a significant topic in women's history, gender studies, and women's studies. Help on this project would be greatly appreciated.

One problem that we face is that editors with little experience in or knowledge of the field tend to see this interdisciplinary topic as original research, and tend to police it rather heavily (I'm feeling uncharitable at the moment so I'm going to allude to the differences in levels of policing of fictional topics and academic topics especially those pertaining to gender and ethnicity.) So basically any stub has to have (1) a topic sentence that explains it; and (2) an extensive list of references from the start to justify and explain to people that this is a well-studied topic. Anything more, or less, is likely to get slapped with tags, AFDs, and so on.

--Lquilter (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Magazine article that may be of interest

Magazine article that may be of interest; Where Are All The Women:On MoMa's Identity Politics by Jerry Saltz; New York magazine; pages 130-131. And Data: Gender Studies - Is MoMA the worst offender? We tallied how women fare in six other art-world institutions. Benjiboi 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Herland (novel)

Herland (novel) could use some cleanup. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've proposed that Pro-feminism and Pro-feminist men be merged. PF is a stub with no refs and PFM has some good refs. They're both the same thing (basically). Come join the discussion here. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fat feminism & Amazon feminism

partial cross post from Talk:feminism
Fat feminism and Amazon feminism are full of original research and Amazon feminism might have plagiarism issues. If anyone can help with these articles please do. I am thoroughly uncertain of Amazon and Fat feminism's notability - at the moment they almost look like hoax articles due to the serious amount of OR on those pages. I'm going to give them 3 weeks to improve - if they can't be sourced and rationalized by then we'll have to send them to AfD--Cailil 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Wikiproject?

This WikiProject seems to express gender neutral aims. However, its "to do" list seems to betray bias. Why do most if not all of the articles to "expand" deal with women or women's issues, and most if not all of the articles to "review" deal with men or men's issues? Put another way, is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors? Is the anti-feminist position welcome here? Would an editor having an opinion that most Misplaced Pages articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, with women possibly being overrepresented as editors, be welcome in this WikiProject? Thanks for any response. Blackworm (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm the "to do list" is added to by contributors. Any one can add to list. Please be aware of WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. This is a project for editors who want to work on and develop pages within category gender studies and the related areas, that is all--Cailil 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no evidence of either an AGF or SOAP violation, and I take the accusations as unprovoked personal attacks. If someone could please directly answer my questions without making personal attacks, I would appreciate it. Blackworm (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) ). Blackworm (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ]

I concur that your remark could be viewed as flame bait, and that Cailil's response is appropriate and definitely not a personal attack. Perhaps you did not intend to be infammatory, but you may need to express yourself with greater civility if you want your concerns to be addressed. Now, if we can get on to the substance of your question, can anybody here explain the apparent bias in the to do list? It sounds like the structure of the list is creating an "us" versus "them" appearance. While unintentional, this may be unhelpful. Would it make sense to merge the two parts of the list? Jehochman 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is written by whoever shows up to do the work. Editors who want to write on feminist topics can do so, and some of them may choose to add their ideas to the Todo list here on this WikiProject, since it seems relevant to their interests. When User:Blackworm argues that articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, he must be asserting that some articles are not neutral. It would be better to hear about a specific article that needs attention, rather than discussing if the Todo list is unbalanced. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm a man and I my work in gender studies has mostly been about masculinities - I wish there was a greater interest on wikipedia in improving masculinities related pages. I think Jehochman's suggestion to merge the lists into a single to do is an excellent idea. This project has not been about us and them and the list should reflect that--Cailil 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) EdJohnston, please reread my comments above, and note that I did not make the argument you claim. I would appreciate it if you would strike out (example) your assertion that I made that argument. Since this WikiProject begins with the declarations, without evidence, that "males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages" and that there is "systematic gender bias on Misplaced Pages" (which I read as a broad, sweeping assumption of bad faith directed at males, the word "systematic" implying a conspiracy, plan, or procedure), I believe it appropriate to question whether gender neutrality or support of feminism is the focus of the project. Whether females are over-represented in articles on gender issues seems relevant due to the logical argument made by this project's declaration. If indeed females are over-represented in articles on gender issues, would you believe that is evidence of "systemic systematic gender bias" in these articles, following the logic of this project's declaration regarding Misplaced Pages in general? Also, must the gender breakdown of editors in this WikiProject be balanced to avoid "systematic gender bias," or does that argument only apply to Misplaced Pages in general? Blackworm (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, could you please point out which specific phrases I wrote which you believe were incivil, so that I may re-examine them and consider apologizing? Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My quote from you was that articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view. Unless my vision is failing, that is what you actually said above. What would you like me to strike out? EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a misquote, since it lacks the hypothetical context. What I said was, Would an editor having an opinion that most Misplaced Pages articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, with women possibly being overrepresented as editors, be welcome in this WikiProject? I did not state that I held that opinion, nor was any argument made as to the truth of that opinion. You asserted that I argued that position. That assertion is false, and I would like you to please strike out those comments. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be most productive if we focus on thinking about which articles need improvement and in what ways. This thread is straying from the main purpose of this talk page, and perhaps some of these comments need to be moved to personal talk pages. I'm not saying that anyone's concerns are unimportant, just that this talk page is for discussing the projecting not "who said what" futurebird (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The question was asked and answered - the "to do list" is added to by contributors. Any one can add to list. If you have business with this project and wish to assist in building encyclopedic articles then your assistance is absolutely welcome. Benjiboi 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my questions weren't clear. Please allow me to rephrase:

This Project asserts, without evidence, that "males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages" and seems to argue that this imbalance creates, or contributes to, "systematic gender bias on Misplaced Pages." It states as its raison d'être the goal of eliminating this apparently one-directional bias.

• In that context, does this Project welcome editors who believe that that assertion and/or that argument is completely without merit, or must this assertion (males overrepresented) and reasoning (systematic bias in favour of males) be accepted as true by all editors contributing to this project?
• In that context and using the same reasoning, would a gender imbalance among editors in this project create "systematic gender bias" in the articles primarily edited by the members of this Project?

Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, some of this is just a matter of fact. Males are over-represented in biographies, for example take a look at this: Let's do a survey right now. Pick a random date such as ...January 21 count the number of men and women mentioned on the page. Of the 86 people listed as being born on Jan. 21, 14 are women, that's about 16 percent. I used births since the deaths listed have even fewer women. Now you try. Pick ANY date you like, the result will be similar. Is that normal? futurebird (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And , Blackworm, unless you're a woman I'm the only woman in this conversation judging by the usernames... And I'm not even that active in this project. In general, most wiki editors are men. Not that I think it's impossible for us to have a fair 'pedia with the imbalance... but, I just don't know what you're talking about when you say: "would a gender imbalance among editors in this project create "systematic gender bias" in the articles primarily edited by the members of this Project" ? futurebird (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the question you asked Blackworm was quite clear and I am not alone in considering it a violation of AGF. You are assuming women are over represented here. Whereas in fact in this thread, so far, only 1 woman has responded (as stated by futurebird above). You are assuming that women are over-represented in the project - 2 of the 4 founders were definitely male (User:Owen aka Sarge Baldy and Seth Mahoney) also I am one of the most active users here and I am male.

If one goes through the list of participants 12 users are identified as being female either in comments or on their user pages. 12 users have unidentified genders - as is their right on WP. You have to assume bad faith to assume female over-representation here. You would also have to ignore me, and other users like Benjiboi who although aren't members regularly comment here. I will ask again, please assume good faith.

Also to clarify, this project exists to correct "any" gender imbalance. That is imbalance against men, women or a homophobic position - hence the use of any. If users were prepared we could change it to "all". I would also have no problem removing the line: "Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up." if the project came to a consensus on its removal. And as Benjiboi stated you are more than welcome to join--Cailil 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Futurebird, in a nutshell, this Project's page seems to be saying that an imbalance in male versus female editors in Misplaced Pages automatically creates a "systematic gender bias" in Misplaced Pages. My question asks whether an imbalance of editors involved with a Project, or involved with editing a given article, would similarly automatically create a "systematic gender bias" within that Project/article. I hope this clarifies things.

Cailil, as far as I know, you are the only editor openly accusing me of bad faith. I am not assuming female overrepresentation here. I am asking if the same logic used to conclude "systematic gender bias" in favour of males in Misplaced Pages, based on an assumption (without evidence) that "males are over-represented in Misplaced Pages," can be used to conclude "systematic gender bias" in any articles shown to be predominantly edited by females. My point in suggesting this is that the logic used to draw the conclusion about Misplaced Pages ("systemic gender bias") appears as a sweeping assumption of bad faith on the part of male editors in Misplaced Pages, especially through the use of the word "systemic systematic," which implies an organized conspiracy, plan, or procedure. Your accusation that I am claiming bad faith (which I strongly deny) by making the parallel argument this Project's page makes, narrowing the context to articles, and reversing the genders, is an ironic twist; it seems to reinforce my point that such assumptions and incorrectly drawn conclusions have no place in Misplaced Pages.

Now I read that you (Cailil) have suggested we remove the assumption leading to the implied conclusion ("systematic gender bias" in favour of men). I believe this would remove the implied "in favour of men" in the conclusion, and address the problem I raise. I support that edit. I also support a merge of the "to do" list, suggested by Jehochman and supported by yourself. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I believe the words "systemic" and word "systematic" should also be removed. Bias is just that, bias -- but calling it "systematic" is like calling it intentional, which definitely violates WP:AGF on a grand scale, and possibly WP:NPOV as well. Blackworm (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Systematic does not equal intentional it equals "embedded in the system" whether intentional or not; just like systematic racism and homophobia. Gender studies looks at the current conditions as well as the roots of those conditions including the development of languages, cultures and laws. I hope your able to see that worldwide their still exists gender imbalance and a need for projects such as this to help counter some of those problems. Benjiboi 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the definitions of "systematic" is: 3 a: methodical in procedure or plan <a systematic approach> <a systematic scholar>.] I strongly disagree with your apparent claim that this WikiProject is needed to help counter worldwide gender imbalances. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy group. This WikiProject, in my opinion, should perhaps restrict its aims to correcting any deviation from the neutral point of view (a) in articles related to gender issues, and/or (b) in any article written from a sexist (or genderist, if that's a word) point of view. It should not begin by claiming widespread "systematic gender bias" without evidence, with the apparent subtext that this bias favours men universally in Misplaced Pages. Blackworm (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The term systemic bias is based on Misplaced Pages:CSB. This project has connections with that one. Systemic bias does not imply conspiracy it means and I paraphrase 'cultural predisposition' or 'bias due to the conditions of a culture/system.' Benjiboi is correct, the term belongs here--Cailil 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Can I suggest we change instances of "systematic" to "systemic," since as you say, the latter does not seem to imply conspiracy? Also, given that you apparently believe the claims of the WikiProject Misplaced Pages:CSB, namely that systemic bias is a normal, unavoidable result of skewed demographic makeup of a group of editors, do you withdraw your accusation of bad faith on my part? The accusation seemed based on my suggesting seeming to suggest that the demographics of a specific group of editors may result in "systemic bias" in the articles they prominently edit, which is the precise argument made by Misplaced Pages:CSB. Blackworm (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I seem to not be alone in my impression of "systematic" versus "systemic." From systemic bias:

Some users of the phrase try to draw a distinction between systemic and systematic corresponding to that between unplanned and planned, or to that between arising from the characteristics of a system and from an individual flaw. In a less formal sense, systemic biases are sometimes said to arise from the nature of the interworkings of the system, whereas systematic biases stem from a concerted effort to favor certain outcomes. Consider the difference between affirmative action (systematic) compared to racism and caste (systemic).

Thank you for the link, it was an interesting read despite being poorly sourced. Blackworm (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) After waiting 24 hours for a response here, I edited the project page to conform to what I thought might be a consensus, with the edit summary, "I don't understand the sudden silence in Talk, I'll interpret this at present as a possible consensus. If not, plz revert & discuss in Talk, addressing my last post addressed to you if applicable."

This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that "males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages" is a "reasonable estimate." I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified . I would appreciate if Edgarde or another editor could address this apparent contradiction or provide sources to back up the claim of a "reasonable estimate." Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackwood, the reason that I personally have not replied before to this thread is that your opening remark looks like flamebait, and your subsequent contributions have not reduced my suspicions. I like to assume good faith, and although I'm finding it difficult here, I'll try.

In this edit, you removed the text "Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up." I think that the disclaimer is overstated: the German user survey shows "Gender: 88 % male; 10 % female; " (see the piechart). I would prefer to have a survey of editors on the English wikipedia (it has been in the pipeline somewhere for ags, but was stalled) ... but until then, a survey of wikipedia editors is much more relevant than your link to an estimate of the gender mix of internet users as a whole, which in any case related only to the United States.

That report estimates 188 million Americans online, but Special:Statistics shows only 6,125,778 registered user accounts on the English wikipedia. Even I was the only non-American, the other 6,125,777 editors would be a mere 3% of American internet users, so there is obviously some self-selection going on, and I see no reason to assume that such selection is gender-neutral when we have evidence of a severe gender bias in another part of wikipedia.

I suggest that the sentence should be reworded as "A survey of editors of the German-language wikipedia showed a male to-female ratio of over 8:1, and although there has not been a proper survey of the English-language wikipedia, there is no evidence to suggest that women are better-represented here." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) To be clear, I'm not claiming the source I provided proves anything; it is merely food for thought, used to help justify and validate in your eyes my questioning of the yet-unproven claim I support removing, a questioning which has been roundly criticized here to the point of accusations of bad faith. (Isn't a goal of this Project to question apparent bias?) However, the link you provide certainly does not verify that Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages (WP:GS). The statement seems to me like original research, or at best, inappropriate interpretation of a source; as does much of your post above. As I said, my objection is on WP:V grounds. I am asking that someone verify the assertions this Project page makes using reliable sources, or remove the assertions. I fundamentally don't understand the degree of resistance I'm encountering here; wouldn't the Project's aims be better stated without first injecting a general suspicion of one-directional bias, Misplaced Pages-wide, favouring males?

Incidentally, and tangentially, I don't understand why one would bring up "self-selection" in the context of a massive survey of Internet users, but not in a tiny, apparently unpublished in a reliable source, apparently non-scientific self-selected survey of German Misplaced Pages users. Also, where is the verifiable evidence of a severe gender bias in another part of wikipedia? Note, again, that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Blackworm (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, may I draw your attention to this comment by Pixiequix at Talk:Female genital cutting:

Phyesalis asked me to review the continuing exchange here, as a neutral third party, and I can see why they were getting frustrated. Blackworm, in my opinion you're not coming from a firmly steadfast position. You might've been at first, but as the exchange has continued it looks like you've been subtly shifting your weight to remain at odds with what's being said. As though you're not interested in reaching a compromise, just being "against" what Phyesalis is saying.

Now, I'm afraid you are doing the same thing here. You wrote above

This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that "males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages" is a "reasonable estimate." I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified .

Yet now you say "I'm not claiming the source I provided proves anything".

You asked for evidence, and were offered it, but now you say that my use of that evidence is "original research". This is the same problem that arose on discussions you started elsewhere: you ask for evidence, and when offered it you dismiss it with generalities and a demonstably false calim of "original research" — if you follow the links above, you will find the German research on a University website: see Misplaced Pages:University of Würzburg survey, 2005, with links to http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/ao/research/wikipedia.php?lang=en and http://de.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Soziologie/Erhebungen#Vorschl.C3.A4ge_f.C3.BCr_neue_Erhebungen.2C_Fragestellungen

Blackworm, I don't know whether you are trolling or whether you simply don't notice how you shift your ground to try to keep an argument going. But as per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#The_tendentiousness_of_Blackworm, this appears to be part of a pattern of editing by you which is widely perceived as tendentious. I cannot know your intentions, but your modus operandi is the same as that of a troll. Please desist, and take heed of the warnings you at WP:AN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please address my arguments, answer my original questions (in the rephrased form above, there are two, simple, "yes" or "no" questions that no one has touched so far), or otherwise argue my points. My position boils down to: "Please cite a reliable source making the claim that Observation suggests an overrepresentation of males on Misplaced Pages." The German source is not reliable, nor does it even make that claim. If you disagree, quote the source. Any interpretation of this source made by Wikipedians is similarly not reliable. Read WP:V.

As for bringing up pixiequix's comments, you are doing exactly what pixiequix did -- commenting on the editor rather than on the dispute. Blackworm (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I regret making this partial reversion instead of reverting it fully. My main concern here was that since a Project page is how a WikiProject represents itself, it seems entirely inappropriate for an editor disputing a WikiProject to edit that Project's page to that editor's liking. Project pages should probably be modified by outsiders only for imminently serious problems, such as WP:COPYVIO or lawsuit-worthy WP:BLP issues. (And even these can usually wait a few hours.)

I am not a member of this WikiProject, and I should not have intervened by accepting part of Blackworm's edit and rejecting another part. I will be laying off this dispute now. All involved have my apologies. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I deny the accusation that I am inappropriately disrupting this Project with this discussion. I apologize if editing the Project page was inappropriate. As I have alluded to elsewhere, my motivation stems from a desire to join a WikiProject which has as its aims to counter apparent gender bias in all its forms, with my actions having a focus on countering examples of WP:NPOV violations. Reading, on this Project page, the (IMO) bias-injecting statements that "observation suggests that males are over-represented on Misplaced Pages," and the implication that this caused or contributed to "systematic gender bias" in favour of males throughout Misplaced Pages, caused me to question whether this Project is for me; the manifestation of this questioning was my starting this discussion section. Blackworm (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that consensus here is against changing the project overview?--Cailil 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see, yes, that would be fair. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, could someone please point me to a WikiProject, if it exists, that has as its goal to counter all gender bias in Misplaced Pages, with no a priori stated or implied opinion that any gender bias on Misplaced Pages only ever favours males? Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Finnish female models nominated for deletion

The related Category:Finnish female models has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Portal proposal

There has been talk of forming a feminism portal over on Talk:Feminism#Feminism Portal. Amidst this talk, it has been suggested that the project be located within the Gender studies project. There seem to be a number of ways to handle this. I've suggested creating Portal:Feminism within the Portal:Gender studies (mirroring Portal:Human rights as the sub-portal of Portal:Law). But first it seems there needs to be a GS portal. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to help much on either topic, so I'd welcome any effort to create either or both.

However, to be honest, I'd prefer to start with a Portal:Women, to provide an entry point to all the material on women. For example, I have recently completed List of women in Dáil Éireann and have half-finished a list of women in Seanad Éireann, and am working on improving individual articles. Checking around the relevant categories, it is difficult to find an overview of wikipedia's coverage of women, and I'm sure that Irish politics is not the only area where women have been historically under-represented but where many of he most notable figures would not have been hesitant to call themselves feminists. For example, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who was only the second woman to hold cabinet minister's post in the Irish Government (after a 60-year gap), does not describe herself as a feminist … and it seems to me that a broader approach would allow the inclusion the many pioneering women in all sorts of fields who didn't wear a feminist label.

Obviously, feminism could be covered in a wider Portal:Women, but I'm not sure how it would fit in with a Portal:Gender studies. Hope I haven't muddied the waters by throwing in an another idea! —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! There's no clear movement on this idea. I think this is a good time to get ideas out and discuss them. Actually, the women portal sounds like a good idea. I like the fact that it allows a broader focus on women who do not identify as feminists. Phyesalis (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, The women portal sounds like a good idea. Would we use it as the Feminism portal? How about a Gender Studies portal? Or would we use the women portal for it too? --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Feminism would fit both - but Portal:Women has a number of other positive points - many of them mentioned by BrownHairedGirl. After thinking about it I think each of the 3 portals would actually bring a reader to a different place. Portal:Gender studies would link to LGBT concepts, men's studies and feminist theory. Portal:Women would bring the reader to articles on notable women who may not be feminists (or feminist theorists as would be the case with portal:gender studies).
At this point I think I'd be in favour of doing all three (which contradicts my points at Talk:feminism) since each one would be valuable and different, in that case Portal:Feminism would be a sub-portal of both Portal:Women and Portal:Gender studies. This would mean an awful lot of work though--Cailil 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I totally agree with you, Cailil. I would be in favor of doing all 3 as well. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. So who wants to start with what? Phyesalis (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which do you want to do, Phyesalis? I could do the women portal or the feminism portal. --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Gender studies

I've created a portal for Gender studies and Grrrlriot created Portal:Feminism - anyone care to contribute, check it out, and/or offer suggestions or criticisms? Thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The portals are new, so they are under construction. Hope to have more information up soon. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done some work on Portal:Men's rights. The major issue there is lack of pictures at the commons--Cailil 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Men's rights is looking good, Cailil. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Subcategory/Task Force of Feminism

I noticed that Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Philosophy has different subprojects/task forces, such as . I was wondering if WP:GS is planning on doing the same in the future or if someone would have to make a page(s) for the different subproject(s)? If so, I would like feminism to be a subproject of this wikiproject or feminism could be a task force of this wikiproject. Does this sound like a good idea? I want more opinions. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack - been a little busy - I think bringing feminism in as a sub-portal is great idea. Be bold! (While I go off and be old.) ;) --Phyesalis (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean a subcategory, right? (A subcategory means a . Would it be of interest? Would anybody actually participate? Would it be active? Those are the questions I would like answered. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my typo. I'd participate. --Phyesalis (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you would, Phyesalis. ;) Anybody else up for this? I think others should be informed of this topic. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol - ok, that was kind of silly. I say, "build it and they will come" - put it together and then post awards for participation over at the Transhumanist's award center! --Phyesalis (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying to go ahead and build it anyway? If so, I will soon and it should be a subproject of WP:GS, right? --Grrrlriot (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) If you're thinking of a task force you could open-up a sub-page of this project or of Portal:feminism. That would seem logical place to put it to me. And yeah I'd be interested in working on it. I would caution one thing though - you've both seen how some users react to this project, unfortunately I have seen the same objections raised again and again on WP in realation to issues that some people don't like. There is and has been a deliberate measure taken by this project (which was original created as WikiProject Feminism) to be neutral and to be seen to be neutral. A feminism (only) task force will unfortunately attract as much and more objections as this project has done. Before you embark on this ask a) could this be covered by this project's talk page or b) by the "Things to do" section of the portal. Once again this idea has my broad support but you need to go into this with your eyes open (and maybe even expecting to have your heart broken by objectors)--Cailil 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by opening up a sub-page of this project or on the feminism portal. I remember the discussion about WikiProject Feminism. I think the wikiproject was a good idea in some ways, but there weren't enough people interested in participating. I agree, The feminism task force would attract objections. Those are some good ideas. I think it needs to be discussed and that we do need to keep our eyes open. I really appreciate the advice. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aw shucks, Cailil, and here we were with our picnic baskets on our way to Grandma's house - you mean there's a big bad wolf in the woods ;)? As always, you provide well-reasoned advice, but this time, I'd say that outside objections to a task-force are just sound and fury. To assume anything other than a desire to neutrally expand and improve feminism articles is a failure to assume good faith. Besides, WP policy is like the U.S. constitution - it's designed to mitigate factionalism (POV pushing). Now, like the US, any given project/article/taskforce may fall short of lofty goals in the short term (say, like an administration - *cough*), but the long term always sees an appropriate correction.

With that said, I think your idea about starting with the to-do list at the portal is a great first step - good way to cut our teeth and see what we might want to emphasize with a taskforce. --Phyesalis (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A to-do list on Portal:Feminism is a good idea and a good first step. On the to-do list, Should we make the suggestion of a task force or see what all we want to accomplish with a feminism task force? I suppose the to-do list could set our goals for what we want to accomplish. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm for it as a task force or a project or whatever. In general I like task forces to avoid proliferation of projects but if anything is going to proliferate it could be this one. I have a bunch of articles on African American women and on women in the professions that need to be written & could be part of women's history sections. If we got this going sooner we could highlight African American women for Black History Month (US) and we can certainly hit Women's History Month (US) in March. --Lquilter (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great, Lquilter. :) I need to think things through with what Cailil said above. --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism/Feminism_Task_Force is now up. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Feminism

I'm responding to the notice board about the Feminism article. I agree, It is mainly composed of stubs. I think the stubs could be new articles that could be created. As for changing the article to "feminisms", I think there should be a new article about "feminisms", since many different kinds are discussed on the feminism article. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. The feminism/feminisms idea/debate is still ongoing within feminism - but I wouldn't really be in favour of a new article about "feminisms" since that is what Feminism is actually covering - however an article about the debate whether the movement should be described as "feminism" or "feminisms" would be interesting.

Addressing the stub issue, actually the page is written as a WP:SUMMARY because there are so many articles about different parts and forms of feminism. When I made that noticeboard posting (which should have been dated as January 2007) the article was in a totally different state and I undertook a rewrite in May-August 07, with the help of everyone there the page is in that the position it is now. I really should have diffed and dated that noticeboard posting!

As regards new articles, personally I think the category is a mess there is massive duplication in History of feminism and there are major issues with many of the stubs (ie Chicana feminism). I would say that before we create anything new we need to do a spring clean. See what can be (and what needs to be) merged and what expanded. That said there are at least two budding sub-articles within the Feminism page - Feminism and science and Feminism and culture when we expand the sections in Feminism a bit further these article should be created. What do you think?--Cailil 13:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A debate about calling the page "feminism" or "feminisms" would be interesting, I agree. I didn't know how old that notice board posting was. Feminism and science sounds like a good idea. Feminism and culture could be about the many feminisms around the world and I would be interested in creating the article. However, I need sources/references. If you could list some references or sources for me to use for the article, I would gladly create the article. I have been working in my sandbox and I was wondering if this is a good idea or not about feminism? --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As regards your sandbox, I think it would be a good resource for this project. The only problems I see are that a number of "Feminism in..." articles already exist which wont expand beyond a stub and may actually already be original research (becuase sources are being used incorrectly). In general I'm not a fan of regional articles unless there is a specific notability about something in France (or where ever else). This is because I'm a mergist and I believe in making one, large, good article and only breaking it up into smaller articles when its components are long enough and well enough sourced to be decent articles on their own. When I see a a 3 line stub that can't be increased becuase there are no more sources I get annoyed.

This was the state of the Feminism in Norway article prior to my merging of it to Feminism. It was basically unsourced opinion. Part of its problem was the way it was written; the other part was the depth of the research that it demonstrated (ie referenced). If we are going to highlight the gaps in Misplaced Pages we also need to set a higher standard becuase articles like Feminism in Poland and feminism in Norway are just not good enough.

With all this in mind it might be a good idea to do a test in a user-space about Feminism in Albania for example and see if a good article can be written about it or if it would be better as a stub about Feminism in the Balkans for instance--Cailil 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you think that it would be a good resource for the project. I think others would be interested in what feminism is like all over the world. That's true, That a lot of the "Feminism in..." articles exist and won't expand beyond a stub. I suppose I could use my sandbox for a test to make a "Feminism in..." article and see where that leads me. It will lead me to a stub or to a good article. If it is only a stub, I think that the Feminism article that tells about feminism all over the world is a good idea, but I think a Feminism and culture article might be good to put all the country ("Feminism in...") stubs. What do you think? --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to look at it. Personally I would imagine an article about Feminism and culture being more about feminist art, literature and cinema; the History of Feminism article might be the best place to merge the regional feminisms stubs into - since they really are histories of feminism in Greece, Australia, Panama, etc. That article needs to be rewritten, it needs to have a clear purpose and this idea might be a way forward--Cailil 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your right, An article about feminism and culture would be more like art, literature, cinema, etc. I am currently looking at the History of Feminism article and someone has tagged it saying that the article is too long. I like how the article looks, but it needs more references and it is too long. I think some of the sections in the article could be created into new articles such as: Feminism and fiction or they could be re-worded and some sections could collide together. As for the regional stub feminisms, Yes, They could go on the History of Feminism article. I suppose that article does need to be re-written. --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Award center

Hey, I've posted award requests over at User:The Transhumanist/Award Center for improvements to Portal:Gender studies and for new articles on non-Christian feminist theologians, particularly Riffat Hassan. I'm thinking this might be a good idea for a project task - post a few reward offers regularly, help attract new blood, promote collaboration and article improvement. Thoughts? --Phyesalis (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. :) I am still thinking of making the feminism task force, but should it be part of the portal or a subproject of this wikiproject? --Grrrlriot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Related question: Should the "feminism-task-force=yes" line be included in the Gender Studies project banner? – Scartol • Tok 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Too late! I've already taken the bold step of adding it. I hope it's not a problem. – Scartol • Tok 14:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, Scartol. It's a good idea and thanks for doing that! --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gender-bait

Hi. I've added Gender-bait to this project's listing (tagged the talkpage). There are some questions about the appropriate/best term or title for this behavior, that I've asked at the talkpage. I'd welcome any feedback, information, or insight. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Gender Roles in Afghanistan

I wanted to let you know that this article seems to be written from a Conservative Islamist perspective, and that something should be done. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Restarting to do list

The to do list has been restarted. Everything on there was over a year old and as stated above gave an impression of polarization. Inline with WP:TODO this page is now using {{todo}} properly. Old posts to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gender Studies/to do have been archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Archive_4#Archives_from_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies.2Fto_do]. I'm removing the 'To Do List' link from the Nav Box as editors will see it here and be able to review/edit it from this page--Cailil 00:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Black feminism

Hi! Just advising of the creation of this new category, if any one wants to fill it up or refine it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Cameron (linguist)

I created this article, because when I searched for her on Misplaced Pages, I got a different person and I was a bit confused. Mainly to avoid confusing people, I created disambiguation pages and a stub. Then I realized that I'm not really so interested in developing that article... Since it seems she has made important contributions to gender studies, I was hoping that maybe someone here would be interested in adopting her bio. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Joan Jacobs Brumberg

I made her an article yesterday just because she was a red link on Fasting girls. I'd not heard of her before. I just mentioned a bit, then I had to go out, but I think there's loads to be written about this person and her work. It's not just girls- she's written about boys too. So I hope one of you will feel like chipping in on the article.:) Merkin's mum 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with bizarre list article

Can someone from the project take a look at List of genders? I don't know much about gender studies but it still strikes me as very very weird to consider aunt, dad or dude as genders. Clearly the list is in dire need of context because most people understand the term "gender" as meaning either male or female. But even taking the more general gender-studies meaning, the list is puzzling. Perhaps the list can be renamed as list of sexual identities or something like that, though it's still unclear why monk (!), brother or girlfriend should appear in the list. If this can't be put in proper context, I'll submit the article to AfD in a few days. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted it as nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

he he... I guess that solves the problem. Pichpich (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

article of interest

This declaration may be of interest to the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Masculine DAB

I'd appreciate some input from memebers of this Project on the masculine disambiguation page, part of which was recently changed from "Masculinity a traditionally male gender role" to "Masculine normally refers to positive qualities associated with men". I feel fairly sure that it's often used in a negative or neutral manner, particularly but by no means exclusively when referring to masculine women. However, I don't really have much experience with the gender studies literature, so I'd be very appreciative of anyone who could come and confirm or deny my belief and point out some references. Thanks! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This project shuns those who don't share the appropriate POV, and yet I completely agree that this change is ridiculous. I don't think what "sources" have to say about masculinity is nearly as relevant as a bold, disputed claim about what masculinity is. Let's face it -- we all know what it is. It's what properties we attribute to it that are debated. Blackworm (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I've been asked at Talk:masculine for a reference saying that the word's not always used with positive connotations, and providing one seems like the best way to achieve consensus. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Olaf, I've left a note at Talk:masculine--Cailil 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

References and dictionary definitions have no place on disambig pages. I'm part of that project, too. WP:DAB#What not to include -- I've cleaned up the page, and left a warning. -Yamara ✉ 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a comment, actually. -22:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Our consensus on Talk:Feminine being dismissed by the poster, and despite his characteristically prolonged defenses, he still hasn't repaired the imprecise, misleading, and definitively POV word "positive". Judging as impartially as I can from his talk page histories, (rather than from his assertions), he likely won't concede until we spend exhaustive amounts of time refuting a petit insistence, and until he decides that he alone is convinced of its merit. He also, judging from his histories, considers himself the expert on Gender, and so these qualities of discussion are very likely to be encountered by this WikiProject again. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cailil, I notice you take up WP:AN/I issues. I encourage you to look into this poster's contributions, and help us decide if his talk-page pedantry is calling into question his otherwise quality scholarship. Thanks, Yamara ✉ 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, general thoughts on how to proceed with Feminine and Masculine would be helpful, too. :) Yamara ✉ 04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• From experience with Alastair I would say that this matter is not "calling into question his otherwise quality scholarship". This is a content dispute and normal dispute resolution should be attempted - ie RfC or mediation - as far as I can see there is no behavioural issue. I'd also ask that you reread your above post in light of AGF Yamara; I disagree with Alastair as much as you do but that doesn't give one the right to speculate on his motives.
  I would suggest an RfC with a very concise statement by Alastair explaining why "positive" is included in both DAB definitions and a very short statement to the contrary.
  I think there is a significant amount of talking past one another (including by myself) on that page so I think outside perspectives are needed--Cailil 10:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cailil. I hope I intend to AGF at every turn, and was reluctant to post the above, but I believe I was detecting a pattern. I hope I was mistaken. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Gender and religion

This article, with the exception of one sentence, lacks information on any religions other than Judaism and Christianity. Can people knowledgable about other religions help expand it? Thanks, --Alynna (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted to WikiProject Religion)

Gender equality is one of this project's central concepts. It was AWOL.

(reposted from Portal_talk:Feminism)

Essentially, variations on Gender equality had been hijacked six or so months ago by redirects to both Zygarchy and Equalism, and had actually begun to affect the conversation across the internet.

This is bad news, as these terms have nothing behind them but ill-defined assertions. I've rarely been embarrassed for Misplaced Pages, but this is one of those moments where the site's power was left in the hands of POV/OR mischief-makers.

"Zygarchy" is a made-up word that would never meet the WP:NEO standard if anyone had caught it. It has never meant "rule of two genders" before someone asserted it on Misplaced Pages. There are a couple hundred blogs out there crowing about the "new word they'd learned" while learning less than zero about notable, verifiable internationally-established gender policy. (Somewhat ominously, "zygarchy" is an obscure but genuine term for an ancient military formation involving two chariots. I think the chariots were used to run infantry over... or to cut them down with a chain between them...)

"Equalism" has been used by notable sources and scholars-- but never consistently. There was some effort to use it to refer to communism in the fifties, anarchism at various points, and some among the Facebook crowd seem to like it better than "feminism"; one news citation in Sweden counts it as a subset of feminism. That is to say, it's a semantic game: There is no "-ism" there, just a desire for one, a moving target without a developed philosophy behind it. I've redirected it to a far more notable article, Egalitarianism.

Nearly every instance of a wikilink to Gender equality had been piped to Equalism. That's what last night was all about for me: finding and removing the plumbing from this phantasm.

I've reestablished the Gender equality article with cites to the UN and an external link to the World Bank. I've added it to the various gender studies and feminism templates. This is one of this project's central concepts, and we really have to watch these pages. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages that may no longer be of use

Since the creation of the feminism task force I've been looking at the project's use of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/translation, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Collaboration and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Notice_Board. Or rather our lack of use for them - I think it's time to delete them.

Also I've marked Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias‎ as {{historical}} - it was put there until a separate project was established - but nothing ever happened - it may no longer be necessary--Cailil 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to the Project Aims

This is related to the above but slightly divergent (hence the separate sub-section). I'd like to suggest we consider changing the project's Overview to something like:

This project is for editors with knowledge or an interest in gender studies and who want to help improve articles about the topic. All that's required to join is an understanding of wikipedia's core principles and an interest in improving and collaborating on articles within this project's scope.

Any thoughts?--Cailil 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• NA-Class Gender studies pages
• NA-importance Gender studies pages
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists