Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Gender studies: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:59, 3 June 2013 editOttawahitech (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,221 edits →Women poets, women judges, female lawyers and female pornographic film actors← Previous edit Revision as of 05:30, 8 June 2013 edit undoSyngmung (talk | contribs)1,510 edits →Talk:Rape during the liberation of France: new sectionNext edit →
Line 52: Line 52:


What do you think about ]? It seems every thing should be hidden.--] (]) 13:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) What do you think about ]? It seems every thing should be hidden.--] (]) 13:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

There is a page ], which mentions rapes during the war. But some people want to hide historical shame articles. Need some opinions. See ].--] (]) 05:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:30, 8 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Gender studies and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
WikiProject iconGender studies NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting 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:
WikiProject iconGender studies NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting 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)
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Gender studies and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Project
Gender studies
⇒ Project page
⇒ Talk page
⇒ Notice Board
⇒ Translation
⇒ Assessment
⇒ Popular pages
⇒ Templates
⇒ Collaboration
⇒ Deletion sorting
⇒ WikiProject Feminism
⇒ Portal:Feminism
Category:WikiProject Gender studies

Discussion at Male privilege

There is some renewed discussion at male privilege, which includes what appear to me to be assertions of WP:POVPUSH. Since this is the WikiProject whose purview that article is apparently under, i thought y'all might like to know. -- # _ 08:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_14#Category:Women_and_death

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_14#Category:Women_and_death. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Edited Page

Check out the updated postcolonial feminism page! We worked all semester on it. Any additional edits are welcome. Jessi.litman (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Gender bias task force

There's a proposal here to set up a gender bias task force. Input would be very welcome. SlimVirgin 23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Masculism task force

I noticed that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Feminism_Task_Force eventually grew large enough to splinter off into its own WikiProject or something like that. Recently I was trying to make a project to compliment Portal:Men's rights much like this WP compliments Portal:Gender studies or how WP:Feminism compliments Portal:Feminism. At Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights someone suggested that this project be called "Masculism" instead. I am wondering people's opinions on this.

I am wondering if it might be more appropriate to operate this as a GS task force for guidance first? Based on the history it was created in 2008 then moved in 2010 so it could serve as some kind of incubation period for a year or two prior to a force>project expansion? Ranze (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Women poets, women judges, female lawyers and female pornographic film actors

During the recent hullabaloo around Category:American women novelists the claim was made that "wikipedia has more articles on female pornographic film actors than on women poets, this is very discoraging to young women." To begin with, the claim seems to have been false, even back in October 2012. What is true is that until about a week ago Category:American female pronographic film actors was a bigger category than Category:American women poets. The later is now slightly larger. However if people want to find another cause celebre they could latch onto Category:American women journalists, although that is very under-developed, partly because I was directly attacked for trying to expand it, even though I was clearly abiding by non-diffusing rules. Category:American female lawyers also might be a point of contention, but that is not very fully developed. What is fully used or very close to being fully used is Category:American women judges and it is still smaller than the American female pornographic film actors cat. Here we do have an arguable problem with lack of articles. As far as I can tell, all federal judges at least to the level of district judge have articles, and virtually all the women have been put in the women category. On the other hand, we lack articles on the vast majority of state supreme court justices, although we generally have articles on current holders of these postions, so a good percentage of the women are represented. There still are some women who could have articles created, and that might be the best way to address this problem. There are also a bunch more women who are state appeals court judges, and I am pretty sure those also qualify generally as notable by postion. I am a lot less sure what can be done to create more articles on more local judges, which is where msot judges are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender inequality in the United States for a DYK

I've stubbed this; it is only a few words short of a DYK. Could use much more expansion. Anyone interested in helping? It's a pretty major topic, and deserves much better coverage than the current stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military

What do you think about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military? It seems every thing should be hidden.--Syngmung (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rape during the liberation of France

There is a page Rape during the liberation of France, which mentions rapes during the war. But some people want to hide historical shame articles. Need some opinions. See Talk:Rape during the liberation of France.--Syngmung (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gender studies: Difference between revisions Add topic