Talk:Feminist urbanism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trawangan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In progress

This article is a work in progress. Feel free to contribute! Here are some of the readings that we're looking as we're writing:

• Silvia Federici: Revolution at Point Zero, The Restructuring of Housework and Reproduction in the US in the 1970´s (1980),

Wages for Housework: A Woman's Home is not her Castle (1976)

• Patricia Morton: The social and the poetic. Feminist Practices in Architecture 1970-2000
• Elizabeth Grosz: Bodies-Cities
• Doreen Massey: Space, Place and Gender
• Rebecca Solnit, Joshua Jelly-Schapiro: Nonstop Metropolis: A New York City Atlas
• Jeanne van Heeswijk: The Artist Will Have to Decide Whom to Serve
• Martha Rosler: If You Lived Here
• Dolores Hayden: The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities, 1981.
• bell hooks: Feminism is for everybody
• Judy Baca: Whose Monument Where
• Sally Roesch Wagner: The Untold Story of the Iroquois Influence on Early Feminists
• Iris Marion Young: The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference

Napplicable (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification

I marked two references as failing verification, and was subsequently reverted in this diff with the edit summary "The references are correct!" by Lifeinthetropics. The sources do not mention the term "Feminist urbanism", and do not support the statements they refer to. Van Heeswijk does not say that feminist urbanism examines capital, labor, power, and social injustice through the lens of urban space and produces new urban realities through self-organization, participation, collective ownership, and new forms of sociability, but describes herself as an instrument that works on self-organization, collective ownership, and new forms of sociability. Vexations (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Verification Cleaned Up

I've added a source that uses the term "Feminist urbanism" and clarified how the other sources used support the definition provided. Perimeander (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Theory versus encyclopedic content

Hello wikipedians,

I understand that this is topical focused article on the theory of feminist urbanism. While that certainly is a great academic theory, in practice it is not WP:Mainstream and does not read WP:NPOV. Opinion literature, art, and other works are generally not reliable unbiased references that would contribute to the article topic as previously suggested. I would suggest that this article content be reframed under a WP:NPOV format and then merged onto/with the urbanism page. As it is, the urbanism article itself is short and there are a wide range of urban theories that would be helpful to arrange with the main topic so as not to confuse the reader. At a high level even the urbanism page itself has problems with relying too closely on unreliable or pov sources. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by "opinion literature, art, and other works" as unreliable references? The majority of sources referenced in this article are from peer reviewed publications. Thanks! Perimeander (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Perimeander, yes peer reviewed journals are great sources of literature for academic research or discussion. However, I would be remiss to not mention there are also peer reviewed journals that specialize specifically in the opinion and perspectives of art, society, literature etc. These are not appropriate for an encyclopedia as they are not WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE sources. WP:ISNOT many things. In this particular case these articles are what are called original research which is also not appropriate for wikipedia articles per WP:OR. My idea would be that it would be less WP:UNDUE to place the content or entry on feminist perspectives on urbanism on the urbanism page rather then as a stand alone article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of source

Our source cited for the following phrase: "Feminist urbanism accounts for numerous aspects of a community, including transportation, housing, family responsibilities, and housing mobility programs, as these elements of a community are often dealt with by women or most commonly impact households that are headed by women." has been marked as not containing the information in this source. I am going to remove [not in citation given] because this is, in fact, directly from the source (Boyd, Melody (2008). "The Role of Social Networks In Making Housing Choices: The Experience of the Gautreaux Two Residential Mobility Program". Cityscape. 10 (1): 41–63 – via JSTOR.), which reads: "Specifically, family responsibilites, transportation, and social networks are central issues to consider from a feminist urbanism perspective, because these issues largely shape the experiences of the women in their placement neighborhoods," and "Feminist urbanism is particularly relevant in analyzing housing mobility programs." Because the text cited directly mentions how Feminist urbanism is concerned with all of the things listed in this phrase, I believe that it is correct to cite the given source. Is there something about this that is still unclear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perimeander (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That's great as original research, and in particular, the author's opinion on the subject is great perspective. However, that doesn't make it 'true' or 'fact'. Which is specifically missing in the aforementioned article. There is no proof within the article that backs the idea that feminist urbanism "accounts for" a long list of things other then that academic authors statements. That means it isn't appropriate in this case to include within the article content. Simply citing an idea from original research does not make an idea true. It's a particularly wide statement concerning a specific POV. My understanding of urban planning is that it specifically/intentionally addresses the same issues. But then again I'm not a researcher. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

^Calling this experimental and data-driven science which is published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development "opinion" and not "fact" is entirely incorrect. And specifically about its use of "Feminist Urbanism" as an analytical tool, the author deeply cites its relevance here: "a feminist urbanism perspective provides ways to consider the nuances of neighborhoods and social networks by drawing attention to the unique experiences of women in urban spaces (Deutsch, 2000; Domosh, 1998; England, 1996; Hayden, 1981; Jacobs, 1961; McDowell, 1993; Wyly, 1999)." So is there any evidence you can produce to trivialize this research or method because to me it seems entirely sound. Mycoolsighman (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would respond by stating that most social science research is opinion as we can only use observation to rationalize the world around us. The social sciences are frequently biased by political philosophy. HUD sponsors the publication of research relating to the political policy interests of the agency through JSTOR. JSTOR itself is the primary social science academic publisher in the United States. I am aware there is a large body of feminist theory in all areas of life, a male rights movement with a body of research, and research and theory speaking to the experiences of gender non-binary persons as well as lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender persons and others who do not conform to specific gender norms. Theory on equity and intersectionality as well. WP:ISNOT a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or be a platform for a specific point of view. We need to take a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV and balance systemic bias of all kinds per WP:BIAS. For these reasons I'm not here just to delete the content, rather to edit to improve it in a encyclopedic manner.

Very plainly wikipedia is not WP:ISNOT original research period. So I have removed it. Summary of research are not appropriate for articles in wikipedia per WP:OR. We also want to stay away from unclear, multifaceted claims or sentences that would confuse readers. At a very high level I think this topic would be better organized as a subsection of the urbanism article because it directly relates the two and there is limited encyclopedic content for even the urbanism article itself. Just as an aside even urbanism as a theory/approach/movement is challenged as being opinion, not being mainstream, not being science based (e.g. empirical) or even as a fringe theory (see Randal O'Toole and the theories of urban planning articles). Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of this needs an answer. From the perspective of a research librarian:

1. All research and knowledge is influenced by its social setting. It cannot be otherwise, because the research is done by people, and their interest and biases inevitably affect the way they look at things. Speculatively, one could say that the secularist orientation of modern society is responsible for the rise and successes of science. Experimental science is based on its predictive ability, but the same object and fact based approach is also valuable in the observation sciences--the test there is not usually prediction, but explanation. It's true that what people regard as a satisfactory explanation is hard to define, but such subjects as academic history rely upon the consensus of other people who know the subject, but this is the best people can do.

We need to learn and teach on that basis: the best and most objective that people can do, and for the purposes of an encyclopedia,this is best shown by the work in academic journals and books by major academic publishers, supplemented by responsible general books and responsible journalism. The value of this approach can be seen by comparing it with the discussions by people who do not use such methods; they usually express blatant prejudice and lack of factual support. We use the best references there are.

There can be different interpretations, and to a certain extent they are complementary. A good encyclopedia presents these alternatives. It's the basis of WP:NPOV. We present all responsible responsible views, and avoid making over-general original research conclusions.

Even outdated or refuted interpretations can assist knowledge, by comparing them with later work--as relevant examples, our understanding of the problems of women in the 21st century is greatly assisted by seeing what was written about them in earlier periods. Our understanding of the problems with urbanism today can better be understood by seeing what may more enthusiasticall have been written about it 100 years ago. And similarly for all social problems. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Expanding on the theory and examples of Feminist Urbanism

Hi!

I am a Rice Architecture student who would love to contribute to this article by expanding on the concepts of Feminist Urbanism. I would provide both further information about this theory and examples of how patriarchy has affected and continues to affect the built environment. Moreover, I want to outline the ways in which these patriarchal movements affect women and society at large, and finally provide a larger list of advocates, resources and projects that have been made to improve this situation. I invite you to check my user page for further information on this possible contribution. Ennis Architect (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! The new contributions are thorough and comprehensive, as well as very readable. This is an interesting topic, and I think that the new lead does a much better job of describing the focus of the article. I would recommend adding some additional links throughout and images where applicable. Overall, great work! Bgreaves18 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You have added a lot of really great information to this article! The only suggestion I really have is to make sure you are citing which scholars are making which arguments you describe, so that neutrality is ensured. Other than that, I really like what you've written! Akandru (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)