This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Archives: Jan 2007 - Dec 2007

pertinent CFD

Interested editors should see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 30#Category:Feminist artists — coelacan talk — 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That CFD ended up with no consensus; but, some of us are continuing the discussion at Category talk:Feminist artists. The basic question is, should the category continue as what it is currently (cross-section of all artists who also are feminists) or should it be limited to artists whose art is feminist, who are producing feminist art? If this category shouldn't be limited that way, then should there be a separate category to try to capture those artists making feminist art? Because presently that category is lost among the artists-who-are-feminists. ... The same issue is applicable to other biographical categories, btw; feminist lit critics, and so on. This points out the need for articles like "feminist art" and so on. --lquilter 21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern girl

I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Japanese social development of the Modern girl in the 1920s; though distinguished from flappers by writers both then and now, the development shares many similarities. If anyone here is familiar with it, I would like to invite you to expand upon the article; I am currently reading about it for class, but (a) admittedly, am not that interested in the subject, and (b) am not a sociologist, gender-studies student, or anything like that and do not really know how to re-express or describe the concepts well. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth, your work on the Modern Girl is really good. I have no background in Japaneese culture and knew nothing about the Modern Girl until I saw the article so I don't feel knowledgable enough to edit it. I have just one issue; if indeed these Modern Girls were not real people but representations of "ideal" women - should the first line be amended to make that clear immediately? It could also be important to show the influence, if any existed, of the New Woman on the Modern Girl. --Cailil 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gender Studies Page

I've recently edited the Gender Studies page to try to improve its quality and its depth, but the page needs a lot more work. As a practitioner of Gender Studies I was appalled at its lack of clarity and references. Its section Gender in Psychology is tagged as biased - frankly the section is so badly written that it need to be deleted or drastically revised. The page needs more sections such as Gender Studies in Film Theory (i.e. Laura Mulvey), Literary Theory, Race Theory (i.e. Richard Dyer's 'White), Anthropology, Sociology and more. In my revision I've defined Gender Studies as: a field of Cultural Studies that analyzes the phenomenon of gender, both in people's lived experience and cultural representations. I recognize that such a definition needs debate and I want to invite it. Please look at my section on the Talk:Gender_studies page about the revision. For anyone about to edit the page, please only make changes that you can reference - the article needs more citation urgently. Also, I hope that my alterations have corrected any POV language and/or "weasel words" outisde the Gender in Psychology section. If anyone can help with this page please do. Cailil 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaze article

We're having an issue on Gaze. An article existed and was complained about for POV reasons by someone who seemed mostly unhappy with the discussions of male gaze. A lot of additions and edits were made that seemed to be fairly mechanical attempts to create an artificial equity. The debate was contentious & not getting anywhere; I picked it up from a CFD or harmonious editing call, and drafted some replacement text that, I hoped would both retain the critical points without raising the POV flags of the folks upset with feminist criticism. The main critic is engaged, but no other feminists / gender studies folks have weighed in to make sure that the rewrite looks good from that side, too. Please join discussion & edit the sample text -- thanks. Talk:Gaze --lquilter 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused

After reading your project page, I'm a little confused about what your project does. The name "gender studies" would seem to imply you improve articles about gender. But your description of what you do and don't do is unclear about whether or not you actually do anything about general gender studies articles. It is also heavily focused on more of a Countering Systemic Bias task, which isn't necessarily all that related to what "gender studies" would imply. Can anyone shed some light on this? --Alynna 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same. Nobody was paying any attention to the Gender Studies page until I mentioned it - and I'm not offically part of this project. While I would concur that countering systemic bias is not necessarily all that related to what "gender studies" would imply, I think it is an appropriate activity for this a group. It would make no sense for us just to address systemic bias in theory. Having said that, you have a point Alynna. The content and accuracy of the Feminist theory and Gender Studies pages, amongst others, is just as important as countering systemic gender bias for Project Gender Studies. --Cailil 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this project does help these sorts of articles; see the project's to do list. Owen 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point Owen but I slightly disagree. The point I see in Alynna's comment is that this project isn't encouraging both of its aims equally. I recognize that there is a long list of articles that need to be added and NPOV sexist biases that need to be fixed, however if this project is about Gender Studies it cannot ignore Gender Studies. The to do list General is a primary example of this - there's NO gender theory side to it. For example gender theories like Lacan's theory of 'Sexuation' - how a child comes to develop a gender identity - isn't even mentioned in his article or anywhere else in Wikipedia and yet it is fundamental to the development of Gender Studies. I don't want to be arguing and I do apologize if I seem aggressive. I know this seems like I'm nit-picking but I consider this to be very important. I would propose a solution: 2 to do lists. One for the removal of biases - the other for the creation are development of Gender theory articles.--Cailil 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be better to 'spin off' the removal of Gender biases aim of this project to a separate WikiProject, and leave WikiProject Gender Studies to focus on improving articles on Gender Studies? - AmishThrasher 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a straight forward solution to the issue. However, In my opinion WP:GS is the right place to ask for help to resolve issues of gender bias. I think the Aims and Editing considerations of the current project page, and the general guidelines of the to do list could be combined in a new section specifically and only about removing systematic bias. Maybe we should try to find consensus about whether we should: A) Spin-off bias removal into a sperate WikiProject. or B) Re-organize the project pages (aims, overview, To do list) to focus equally on both Gender theory and bias removal. Personally I'm in favour of the project pages just being reorganized.--Cailil 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to separate into two projects, but I would not be averse to balancing and clarifying the one project instead. --Alynna 19:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think I agree. I believe that both projects are necessary, but not necessarily similar enough to overlap within one project. It's also true that bias removal overlaps with Countering Systemic Bias, but I think that it's a project in itself (CSB has many issues to deal with, and a project focusing on this key area would probably be beneficial.) The Gender Studies WikiProject should cover, well, gender studies. I don't know what the other project should be called; perhaps WikiProject Gender Neutrality? Owen 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSGB ? or WP:CSB-G? I think the countering systemic bias / gender issues should be a project of CSB, and name should reflect that. --lquilter 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. Owen 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with splitting them. Gender studies is an academic discipline; projects working on it would be expected to work on theoretical issues and so forth. Bias removal is a very, very different thing, and would include (a) adding missing articles and language; (b) correcting bias in language, categorization, and unjustifiable discrepancies in coverage; and so on. Moreover, as long as these two separate aims are wedded here in this single project, it is going to cause difficulty for people working on either one of the aims. Critics arguing against correcting systemic bias will say it's a specific academic viewpoint (the gender studies perspective). Critics arguing about gender studies articles will say that it's POV based on CSB, not academic. Much, much better to split them. And includes links to "related projects or projects of interest". --lquilter 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be in a minority of 1. Spliting the project seems like a straight forward option - a "Descendant" project for "Countering Systematic Gender Bias" (I prefer WP:CSGB) would probably be a logical way forward. I am slightly worried that certain vested interests would attack it (as they attacked here) by claiming it would be no different from WP:CSB. I do agree with lquilter though. I am a Gender Studies academic and I did have discomfort with some of the CSB aims of the project - but I got over them as soon as I responded to a call for help. Some times academics need to get their "hands dirty" - it helps them understand what they're doing instead of just knowing about it. I'm rambling now so I'll just say this, if WP:GS did give birth ("spliting" makes me think of psychopaths) to a Countering System Gender Bias Project I'd hope some links would be maintained for the mutual good of both projects : )--Cailil 16:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would make it a vulnerable project. But as long as we make it clear the purpose is strictly to eliminate the bias of gender practiced throughout Wikipedia, I don't know what serious grounds there are for deleting it. We'll just have to work with people to make sure it's focused with gender neutrality rather than implementing a feminine (or masculine) bias. Keeping ties between the two projects is probably also a good idea. Owen 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that there is a consensus for creating a new project for CSGB. I'd like to propose a few ammendments to this group's aims (I'm leaving in remove systemic gender bias until the new group is up)

Aims of this project

To create and/or improve articles associated with Gender Studies, Gender Theories and gender issues (including femininities, masculities, feminists and transgender issues).
To remove systematic gender or sexist bias from Wikipedia.
To address the lack of gender diversity in wikipedia.
Where a Gender Studies writer has written on a given topic, that position should be put forward on the appropriate article (as well as any criticisms or critiques).
To create a thriving WikiProject.
To bring every Gender Studies related article up to FA status.
To ensure that internal organisation of Gender Studies articles is consistent.
To maintain or improve articles that come under our jurisdiction within Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.

What this Wikiproject is not

This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian. This project does not exist to correct any perceived pro-female or perceived anti-male bias. This project is gender neutral and operates as such.
This project does not seek to write general critiques of articles about gender-related topics.
This project does not limit itself to European/North American issues.
This project is not a space for writing feminist, masculinist or LGBT critiques of society.
This project does not seek to introduce a POV bias (to either articles, or Wikipedia in general). Rather, the aim is to improve the quality of articles, which deal with gender and Gender Studies, within the Neutral Point of View policy.
This project is not a vehicle for self-promotion (see WP:COI and WP:V).

Like my other edits I haven't removed anything - I've added a few things and reworded others but they're not all that different. What do people think?--Cailil 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks generally good. One question (and this might be irrelevant after the new project is created): what does "This project does not exist to correct any perceived pro-female or perceived anti-male bias." mean? --Alynna 00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Its really just a rephrase of "This project does not aim to correct a perceived pro-female or anti-male bias in Wikipedia". You'll see in some Trolling of this group that some people percieve the female focus of feminist articles to be biased - this is not gender bias but has been misrepresented by these Trolls as such (you may notice too that the male focus of masculinism is not attacked). My italicizing of "percieved" might be a bit heavy handed though--Cailil 14:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So is it just saying "If you have a problem with the feminist articles, go away"? --Alynna 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. This project is involved in redressing genuine anti-male bias aswell as anti-female or any other gender bias. The clause in question is about "what gender bias is" and "what it is not." My example about femininism may need explication. Feminist articles talk about women because feminism is (or at least most of it is) about women (vice versa for masculinism) - this is not bias. Other articles talk only from a male perspective but are about people (or the wider universe) - this is bias because it is talking about all people (or so-called universals, like the laws of physics) but only from a male perspective. Its not just a "if you don't like feminists - get lost" clause and it shouldn't be used that way. One must understand bias and be able to back claims of it up with proof, examples & evidence - rather than just accusing something they don't like (or are frightened of) of being biased (see the recent conversation with a Troll). I hope this helps a bit : )--Cailil 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. I get it now. Maybe it could be rephrased a bit more clearly? --Alynna 14:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your right it is unclear, maybe we should all have a think about rephrasing it because it is central to this groups' efforts.--Cailil 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So this project's aim is to remove gender bias, but not to be concerned with "perceived pro-female or anti-male bias"? This is a very confusing qualification. Who/what is the arbiter of whether a bias is merely "perceived"? This point still needs clearing up.--Adzze 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this the right project to look to for help?

Save Indian Family is an Indian mens-rights organization, and the article is seriously one-sided. I am having trouble finding enough outside sources about the organization to effectively rewrite, especially as the article is aggressively defended, apparently by people associated with the organization. Anyone else want to give this page a try? -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just got around to looking at the page today. It is a really problematic page - the attacks launched on you are pretty unjustifiable. I'll put some time into researching the SIFF over the next few days. Hopefully one of us will find some reliable objective information : ) --Cailil 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Feminists are the ones, who publish notoriously one-sides articles. Here is an example: Bride burning.Save Indian Family is a registered Indian Family rights organisation, because feminists have betrayed innocent women in India by receiving huge funds from Western countries(US and Europe). Innocent women, elders and even minors are getting jailed[1] due to pressure from feminist lobbies. It is important that feminists in these countries desist from cultural invasion and exporting "legal terrorism"[2] to India and China in the name of promoting Gender Equality. By the way, why "Gender Studies" is not about study of both genders "equally"? Both Fisherqueen and Cailil are not Indians and they have little knowledge on the subject and still, due in shear intolerance, they deleted large number of citations and content from the article with malicious intent to push it towards an Afd.Newageindian 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Newageindian Gender Studies is the study of all genders equally. I have not editted the SIFF page. I looked for consensus and proposed an edit, as I have already said on the SIFF talk page. It has already been pointed out to that you were in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.--Cailil 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue is being resolved amicably on the article's talk page. If anyone has anything to contribute to the article please do at Save Indian Family.--Cailil 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

new userboxes for project

Hi all, I've made some updated userboxes for ~~teh project in my sandbox~~ (see later message). Please have a look. The project messagebox needs to be updated the old one is very awkward - even if it is better looking that my one. I'd like to update the Usebox aswell - to make it purple instead of pink and to make the code much simpler. What does anyone else think? I also think we should to use the neutral gender symbol with the transparent background--Cailil 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I like those. "and remove" could be "and to remove", but that's not important (it's grammatical either way). --Alynna 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alynna I took your wording suggestion. I've also added a few extra templates as well as award icons, barnstars and a white project message box in my sandbox. ~~Here's a very early draft of what the page might look like: new WP:GS draft1~~ (I went ahead and made a few aesthetic alterations to teh project as well as creating some neccessary subpages)--Cailil 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Begun uploading some of the aesthetic changes that will help the project immediately. I've left the message box as purple for the moment apricot (standard) or white alternatives are readily available.--Cailil 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like purple instead of pink (did it get changed when I didn't notice? The old ones that I see aren't pink?) --lquilter 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah lquilter I changed them at about 16:20 UTC - made a few other additions on the project page as well.--Cailil 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really graphically inclined, but a few thoughts. (1) On WikiProject Gender Studies tasks to do - Having the icon in the heading of the project seems to make more sense; it's a type of logo; and it is a more efficient use of space. But I liked the extra white space/graphic in the original version. (2) I don't see a difference in the userbox, or the article message box (except for variant colors). (3) varying levels of user award boxes & barnstars - it seems a bit much to me. (but then i'm not really a fan of these kinds of things.) (4) The article message box - I'm a fan of consistency with other such message boxes, and at the same time a fan of shrinking all of them down to something that is not so overwhelming on every talk page. I guess these look fine, relative to all the other ones. --lquilter 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at them lquilter. I'll try to reply in order to your comments. (1) If you like the "white space" in the tasks box, it could be easily reintroduced. (2)I didn't change much in the Userbox's look (its mainly just the old logo "bulked-up" and transparent & turned purple) but I actually redid the code so that it's much simpler. (3) I agree with you about the awards - I've added the Barnstar to the real page on its own (in the words of Fr. Dougal McGuire "I went a bit mad there";) ) - the other awards are probably unnecessary and confusing. (4) The message box will shrink if we reduce the text in it either in size or quantity. I kept the purple colour so that it wasn't so much of an alteration, I prefer the standard apricot one myself.

As mentioned above I've made the graphics changes to the project and added some subpages. If anyone wants them reverted please discuss here. I've left the "peer review" sub-page for the moment, until everyone I've contacted has had a chance to take examine the new look and feel.--Cailil 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the message box again to make it comply with WP:1.0 - unfortunately I can't get to be small & purple in this form (at least at the moment) as soon as I can do that I will update it.--Cailil 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a similar project for racism?

I'm having quite a lot of trouble. It's explained here.--futurebird 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

POV check

Content in question:

Project overview

Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up. The aim of this Project is to correct any systematic gender bias on Wikipedia. If you're interested, add your name to the list of contributors!

This project is blatantly biased toward "oppression" or "gender" feminist POV. It is reverse sexist in that it allows editors who use 'gender' in misandric, pejorative or in outright ridiculous ways to act as what Christina Hoff Sommers calls "Gender Wardens" in Who Stole Feminism. This kind of totalitarian thought control is typical of gender-feminist academics according to Patia and Koerge in Professing Feminism: Scholarship and Indoctrination in Women's Studies.

Therefore, I insist this project overview be balanced to reflect all possible abuses of the term 'gender' including those that feminists indulge in. Please see misandry for sources on how gender-feminists rape the language with 'gender' as a front for man-hate. Constant whining about bias and victimhood from fascist gender-feminists is far from NPOV and quite ridiculous when one reads about the covert, cunning, and ugly totalitarian tactics 'gender'-feminists use to dominate public discussion. (drop in editor)

Could you cite some examples of the bias please? futurebird 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Be glad too. Let me pull in book review comments from Amazon which are better written than my comments here. (drop in editor)

I was thinking of examples of anti-male bias here at wikipedia. futurebird 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazon book reviews of well-reviewed books that show feminist abuses of the term 'gender' seem quite relevant to this question but since you see no need for them I will not waste my time. A reverse sexist bias is clearly stated in the project overview above which refers only to one sex's (I use gender for gender and sex for sex) issues. When I try to balance that content in this project my content is deleted. There are so many "fascist"-feminist abuses of this word on wiki that I have no idea where to start other than to refer you to better authors than I. On real cunning abuse is to use 'gender' for 'sex' and 'sex' for 'gender' to push feminist 'theory' which is really an untested and oft-falsified theory. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you feel this project is biased. The trajectory and concerns of this project are based on the bias currently found in wikipedia-- I am serious, if there are "ant-male" articles, I'd like to know about them, as would otheh This is a project about Gender Studies, so if there is a lack of balance we'll do what we can to help....I can't, however, help you with amazon.

I need no help with Amazon. I just asked you to glance at a few sources that show what I mean here. They explain complex "gaming" of 'gender' by gynocentric feminists far better than I can in a short time here. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I must say that, when you use terms like "fascist"-feminist I get the distinct impression you have a strong "POV" It's seems like a bit of hyperbole. --futurebird 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have no less a strong POV than all the victim-feminist editors who took the time to build this cunning, covert and blatantly biased project page. As for the term "fascist" that is a term directly from Legalizing Misandry a huge and exhaustively researched recent text on systemic man-hate by feminists who use 'gender' as a "front"...(their words.) I tend to get a little bothered by blatant violations of NPOV here. (drop in editor)

128.111.95.217 please refrain from sarcastic remarks about theory - if you are not interested there are plenty of other Wikipedia articles & projects that need work. I refer you to WP:NPA also. I will say to that points like yours have already been made a number of times on this page. The part of the project tha you are questioing is a what this project is not : This project does not aim to correct a perceived pro-female or anti-male bias in Wikipedia. Please note the word "perceived". I take note of your concern that the words gender and sex are being confused. I refer you to Gender and Gender Studies for the clear definition of gender in Gender studies terms. I also refer you to Judith Butler for more on this. I am going to remove your POV tag - this is a project NOT an article, tagging it as such is incorrect an might be seen as vandalism. BTW, your statement above cites no sources - I am willing and very happy to discuss any evidence you have of such views as long as it is notable and verfiable--Cailil 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You might start with reverse-sexist and unsubstantiated Projects overview (above) that refers only to one form of bias. That is a dead giveaway that this is about one form but not all forms of abuse of the term gender. Cunning, covert and ugly gynocentric abuses of this term can be found in virtually all articles on feminism...all I ask is that these abuses be called out here as well as the usual so-called 'patriachal oppressions'.

I made no sarcastic remarks about (feminist) theories. These theories have been shown to be mere recycled ideologies by Patia and Koerge (feminists), by Nathanson and Young and other reputable researchers. To call recycled Marxism, Romanticism or Classism a 'theory' rather than an ideology would be pejorative. Patia and Koerge go on at length about the abuse of science and scholarship for political purposes in Professing Feminism. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 03:55, 21 January 2007 (U

I am unclear with what you are questioning. That males might be over represented on Wikipedia. Your a man. I'm a man. That's 2 out of the 3 people using this page right now. Besides the overview puts forward the idea of a survey. I would refer you further to aims of this project and its What this project is not. Can you spell out what & where you found in articles about feminism more specifically please? You placed theory within inverted commas (implying that they are "so-called") I apologise if I misunderstood you. However a feminist theory is not at isue here, Gender studies is not a theory or an ideology it is a field of inquiry. Wow the last time I heard Patia and Koerge mentioned here was when this was still Women's studies. Come to think of it, it was in an argument very similar to this one satrted by IP User 71.102.254.114 [4]--Cailil 04:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am questioning the reverse-sexist focus of this project...it is clearly a front for the gynocentric gender wardens as currently created. There is no mention of blatant FEMALE gynocentrism and reverse-sexism in the project overview...nor are there balanced NPOV references to explain the basis for this project included. To me, all forms of abuse of the term 'gender' belong here if this project is be NPOV. To focus on just one sex's concerns is absurd when both sexes abuse the term for political POV pushing. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 04:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with your complaint, this is a project not an article. If you are concerned that this project is biased RfC it. If you have any specific, verifiable issues with Gender Studies articles please raise them. I will also point out that the 2nd aim of this project is To correct any sexism or gender bias in Wikipedia articles. Personally I feel this clearly about both sexes. I would not be here if it was not.--Cailil 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then please spell this out so it is clear here. I see no mention of here of reverse sexist gynocentric gender biases that are so common in the women's studies section of any bookstore. I also see no mention here of the covert, cunning and ugly misandric uses of the word gender here. Reverse sexism is much harder to see than the usual forms of sexism. I ask that you review Legalizing Misandry which explains this issue far better than I. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that I have every right to edit this project as a project in line with all of it's stated aims. Are you saying I have no right to weigh in here other than in some form of dispute resolution? I support the basic aims here but I insist that they be non-sexist and NPOV so that no one sex or gender is seen as the problem when each uses ugly tactics. I am going to edit a few statements on the project to correct obvious POV issues. Please offer constructive comments or edits. (drop in editor128.111.95.217 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what you have added the POV tage for, right? This is a simple fact. There are far more biographies of men than women. Hence men are over-represented. We can't counter systemic bias if we can't even point out when it exists. I mean, unless you seriously think that women are over-represented... I'm removing the POV. It's not warranted. futurebird 04:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed believe that in articles on feminism females are overrepresented and the articles are blatantly biased toward gynocentric POV's (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 05:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

128.111.95.217 do not create an edit war. If you're interested in WP:GS please join. But your edits are not consensus and may look like vandalism. The correct procedure for altering aims of ANY project is to seek consensus. You have no consensus to make one of these edits. '''Being bold''' does not stretch this far. I have asked you a number of times for specifics you have provided none. If you are the same user that attempted this same action before please stop wasting your time an our time. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I will say this one final time if you are truely concerned about bias on this or any oter page RfC it--Cailil 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are BUNCH of specifics;

From Legalizing Misandry in Appendix 10 entitled Gynotopia: Feminism at Academic Conferences the authors note that virtually all the papers presented at the annual conferences of the Modern Language Association during the 90's make it clear that gynocentrism prevailed. Gender was among the most common topics BUT THE TERM 'GENDER' ALMOST ALWAYS REFERRED TO THE FEMALE APPROACH TO GENDER. RARELY WERE MALE GENDER PROBLEMS REPRESENTED IN ANY OF THE HUGE NUMBER OF PAPERS THEY LIST VERBATUM IN THIS APPENDIX.
The very definition of gender is being raped by ideological feminists much like they do with the term 'rape'...eg ALL heterosexual sex is by definition rape. These totalitarian tactics allow for absurd claims in my local newspaper about female medical conditions where the front page title uses 'gender' and the back page sub-title for the article uses 'sex' for the same medical condition (which was shown to be sex-related rather than gender related). This kind of confusion is what 'like, like, like' feminists love to create with the term gender so no one can call their hands when they use gender to take female rights with no corresponding female responsibilities. I insist that we use standard dictionary distinctions between gender and sex to prevent this rape of the language for covert, cunning and ugly POV pushing.
Spreading Misandry has a whole chapter on the use of this term 'gender' as a front for what they call "FASCIST" feminist political ideology/psuedo-theory. At the very least this gender project should mention these abuses so they are corrected in gender-related articles. As it stands in virtually every article where gender is mentioned, gender-feminists are able to inject cunning, covert and ugly POV propranda with no need for what you guys call 'consensus'.

(drop in editor)128.111.95.47 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in an edit war. I listen to feedback but to call this consensus is a bit much. Please review the very reasonable edits I have made to correct obvious POV in the project and then discuss your issues with me for some sort of consensus. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 05:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

- Other editors observe that female are overrepresented on Wikipedia again with no proper survey to back this up. I take it that is you. Let's do a survey right now. Pick a random date such as today 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. futurebird 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

128.111.95.217 your edits may be reasonable in YOUR opinion, but this is a project for multiple users all of whose views should be represented. You have started an edit war by editting this project without consensus. If you want to propose your views to the group as a suggestion for consensus do so here when you get a consensus for your edits make them, otherwise stop editing this project please your views may not be as appropriate as you think.--Cailil 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. To accuse ME of starting an edit war and to believe that your unsubstantiated opinions are some sort of 'appropriate' 'consensus' is one of the typical tactics that totalitarian feminists use to slander and silence dissidents. I am not here to shut you or anyone else down and I am not taking issue with your 'reasoning'. What I am doing is insisting that you and all other editors use some sort of NPOV basis when you go about building these projects. I am not here to propose my views to a group for some sort of consensus...I am here to insist that this project follows NPOV...because as you no doubt already know a group can easily consense for POV purposes. That blatant gender-as-female victimhood bias is what I am taking issue with here because I have read many feminist and non-feminist authors who show how ideological (or what misandry researchers call "FASCIST") feminists use the term 'gender' as a front for militant misandry, reverse sexism and gynocentric gender-ginning. All I ask is that you be fair here and fairness is not JUST about how many women weigh in...fairness also has to do with respect and intellectual honesty as well.

(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Check: Freedom of speech in feminism and gender related articles?

Feminist Phyllis Chessler in her (2006) The Death of Feminism (Chapter 1: The "Good" Feminist) makes the following statements about totalitarian thought control in elite feminist, academic, and media circles. I added Chessler's thoughts here after noticing that there is almost no gender-neutral NPOV balance in this project. All I am asking is that we be sex and gender-neutral in this project and that we refrain from the usual totalitarian feminist tactics to use 'gender' as a gynocentric front for gyoncentric, reverse sexist, and misandric assertions of female-as-'gender' oppression. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Does she (an unnamed lifelong Democratic feminist in New York mentioned in the preceding paragraph) believe that engaging in dialogue with the designated "enemy" somehow constitutes traitorous behavior? If so, and I suspect this is the case, I must ask: Is she only afraid of the Republicans--who have not abolished her First Amendment right to speak out as feminist and who have not rescinded the Fourth Amendment against improper search and seizure--or is she afraid of the media and the academic elite who view civil conversation with anyone who opposes them as a high crime?"

"It is crucial to note that our government has not criminalized free speech nor have dissidents been jailed for saying whatever they please. In my opinion, the chilling of free speech has been unilaterally imposed by those who claim to act on its' behalf."

"What sort of group or person refuses to recognize the existence of and refuses to even talk to, no less hire, someone with whom they disagree? What sort of group or person persistently slanders and demonizes those with whom they happen to disagree on key political issues? What sort of group or person demands uniform party-line thinking--and is powerful enough to coerce people into "hiding" their potentially dissident views, sometimes even from themselves"? "Surely I must be talking about the power of the former Soviet state or Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or any one of the many Islamic dictatorships; or I must be describing Republican or conservative thinking. Alas, I am not."

"Today totalitarian thinking is also flourishing among media and academic elites. Oddly enough, such totalitarian thinking and its consequent thought control are flying high under the banners of "free speech" and "political correctness". Dare to question these elites' rights to expose or challenge them, and you'll quickly be attacked as representing a new and more dreadfull form of "McCarthyism" and "witch hunting".

drop in editor, user 128.111.95.47. This is a wikipedia project talk page bound by the policies of no personal attacks and assume good faith. Any posts here, by they questions, comments or criticisms must be evidence based, verifiable and founded upon reliable sources. If you have a problem with this project you should RfC it, notify an admin and/or generally work within policy. It has been explained to you that this project is consensus based collaboration editing - if you do not understand this please refer to Wikipedia policies on consensus. Please do not post the same comment in multiple locations - there is no need for it. If you wish to draw users' attention to a comment please link to it.--Cailil 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, I expect you to stop making slanderous personal attacks on me. As you can see by all of my edits everywhere I never intentionally make personal attacks on other editors and when I do make minor mistakes I correct them. To be critical of others ideas or actions is NO personal attack...it is what wiki is about to attain some sort of NPOV balance using normal give and take. I have no need to attack you or anyone else personally here but I am attacking an overall attempt to censor, slander and silence critical sources on feminist-front gender articles. Stop lecturing me about good faith...stop trying play a 'girl's' game (see Relational aggression) to set me up as some kind of 'vandal' when you can see I use and offer you credible sources and reasonable discussions. As I have read throughout wiki policies, NPOV is a non-consensus standard here. When other editors silence, slander, or dissemble to censor credible sources and destroy NPOV IN THE NAME OF CONSENSUS I am going to call it. You take far more time telling me what to do than you do considering to specific sources I offer...I have got to wonder about your good faith here. Are you really being nice (and NPOV!) here or are you just trying the usual vicious (and well-documented) nice-vices that some totalitarian feminists and their flunkies use to rape the reputations of those who whistleblow, dissent or merely disagree? Please stop trying to bully me. Please bring some sort of sex and gender balance to this pander-to gender-feminist-propranda project. I am no niave innocent who buys all the bull that masculinists spread or all the 'COW' that feminists spread over these politically loaded gender pages. I insist on some sort of NPOV balance on this project. I also insist on some sort of balanced so-called consensus on the feminism and gender related articles because they are grossly unrepresentative as shown. To insinuate ('antifeminist' I assume) gender bias on such blatantly feminist-fronted and blatantly gynocentric gender articles is to insult the intelligence of ALL editors of good faith. That is why I edited this project...to see if anyone here was willing to use good faith NPOV on gender articles. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 06:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you care at all about NPOV on this 'gender' project, I ask that you consider some of the specific sources I offered you per your requests above. You will see that what I am hot and bothered about has nothing whatsoever to do with you personally. It is about the rape of rhetoric on a global scale (by a fascist fringe of flim-flam 'front' feminists) that I care about...I take some comfort that the word 'cunt' is now more popular than the word 'feminism' among prominent American actresses (see Professing Feminism) but I am not surprised because post-modern feminism is insane as well as ugly and unreal. False 'consensus' is the favored tactic of these flim-flam feminist thugs too with their 'we', 'we', 'we' whines about everything under the sun....and with their totalitaritian slander of all 'I' people who dare to disagree. This is a great dissapointment to me because we need FINE female wisdom more than ever now...to survive as a species much less thrive. As for males today, that is a topic too sad to contemplate...are all the males in America merely spoon-fed (flim-flam) feminist flunkies? I believe we ALL (women and men) owe all of Washington's (male-sex) soldiers...who bled bare-footed on the ice on the way to take Trenton so we would be a free people...some respect. To see fascist-feminists rape rhetoric, reason, and our constitutional rights to free speech (along with their deluded male flunkies) demeans the memory of millions of men (and a few women) who fought for our freedoms. I expect better from you and other editors of 'good faith' here. Wiki is no front for flim flam propaganda in my opinion. May I suggest Greetings from Idiot America for a little take on the perils of false consensus...and group think. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 06:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of the comments in 128.111.95.47 last paragraph are not relevant to furthering this discussion. Let's focus on writing good articles. In terms of doing that, we all want to have neutrality on the encyclopedia pages, and that includes laying out the subjects of articles, and placing them in context -- including responses (positive, critical, reactionary, etc.) and influences.

One thing, though: It is very important to distinguish between articles -- which need to be NPOV and balanced in the content, and should not be about pushing any agenda -- and projects, which are part of wikipedia's internal processes, and are very much about pushing an agenda. The agenda itself has to be acceptable -- it can't be to make articles bad or NPOV -- but they are, specifically, about an agenda; for instance, copy-editing, removing vandalism, adding references, removing US-centric perspectives & replacing with a global perspective, improving the quality & quantity of articles in a particular subject. The agenda here is to improve the quality & quantity of articles on gender studies.

Complaints about particular articles should be primarily addressed on those individual articles. Pointing out that this project is missing this or that article are appropriate, but lengthy discussion of particular articles should be done on the talk pages of those articles. Complaints about the subject of those articles (feminism or women's studies, misandry, etc.) is simply not relevant to the goal of assembling an encyclopedic reference. Wikipedia isn't the real world; this is a project to write a reference work, and complaints about society in general would be better off on a talk forum. Significant changes to the scope, or work of the project are made by consensus on the talk pages of the project. If someone feels the project has gotten significantly off course from its original approval by the wikiProject Council, then that should be raised at WP:COUNCIL. --lquilter 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

--lquilter 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment of Articles Feb 2007

Hi all, I've just gone through all the pages link to WP:GS. Of them 2-3 may need deletion/merger. Most of the rest are Start class, a few B class and one A class. There are also a few stubs. If any one can add to these articles please do.--Cailil 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to surf the stubbs. futurebird 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sex and intelligence

It needs to mention the historical context in the intro. It just jumps right in to the sex differences without talking about the 1000 or so years in which it was just assumed that women were not as smart as men. I'd have to start reading all new material to source something like this so I'm making a little plea for help on this edit. (I tagged the article in the meantime.) futurebird 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Purple message boxes

I've finally got round to fixing the code in our message boxes. ~~You can see what they'd look like if we make them purple here. I don't mind which we use.~~ The apricot version is standard but the purple version might be more fun : )
BTW, the project barnstar I proposed is underconsideration for approval. Also a new {{gender-studies-stub}} is being developed in WP:STUB.--Cailil 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Women's writing as an area of study

Hi! I wasn't aware of this project until today but have been trying to do something similar in my own area -- literature -- by working on lists of women writers, adding or updating biographies, etc. As some of you might have noticed, "Women writers" was recently removed as a category. Here is the discussion. I began a call for re-institution of the category here. According to "Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality":

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one.

So, I have begun to draft such an article. It's not ready for prime time, but when it is, people friendly to the project of expanding Wikipedia coverage of women's writing are invited to stop by and let us know what they think. scribblingwoman 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good - I"ll be happy to see what your draft. --lquilter 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Come on by! scribblingwoman 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. scribblingwoman 14:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Further update: The discussion continues, and the category is still in danger. scribblingwoman (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing concern

I have started to notice that some biographies tack a "Marriage and family life" section on to the end of the article. This is especially true of men (women's marriages tend to be described as more significant as more than men's). They add a couple of sentences on the man's marriage and children after describing his life and career. I would like to suggest that this project advocate that such information be integrated into the narrative of the person's life, especially if it's told chronologically. Awadewit 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. futurebird 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd look at it from the point of view of notability. Unless someone's marriage is notable it doesn't deserve a seperate section. However, this creates the converse problem - if an editor considers that the subject's marriage is not notable enough for the narrative section (which can be a reasonable editting decision if the narrative deals solely with the subject's professional life) they would look to include a 'personal life' secion as secondary to the overall notability of the subject which is a perfectly reasonable way of improving Wikipedia. In truth I don't believe such a position could be advocated for in general. Specicially when the narrative is a general biography, told chronologically, you've got a point Awadewit. But should articles be written this way? Personaly i'd be more concerned that non-notable personal information (such as marriages and children) are given a privelaged position in the narratives of notable women. Consider the differences between Marie Curie (a general biographical narrative) vesus Ashley Judd (a sectioned biography based on notability). I know this is a bizarre comparision but the format may be of interest forthis discussion.--Cailil 13:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the "Career" and "Personal Life" distinction (that structure seems to be used a lot for film and TV stars). Those articles have tended not to do what I am talking about. It is the articles that chronologically narrate the person's life, along with their career, and then add the marriage on to the end. See, for example, William Wilberforce and Thomas Dixon, Jr.. I don't think that it's an accident that I've only seen it in nineteenth-century biographies (I assume it is in 18th, 17th, etc. as well). I understand Cailil's point about the foregrounding of women's marriages as well - it is a problem. It always seems to be more important when a woman gets married than when a man does. I don't want to force biography writers into one structure or another, but I think that if they choose the chronological structure, they should be aware of some of its potential pitfalls. Awadewit 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you are Awadewit and I would concur that it is no accident that the articles in mind are C19th they are reflecting a C19th style of representing a man's life story. My only difficulty is that the formula of words for advocating such a position would need to be very carefully considered and at the same time easily understood. One way of doingthis would be to argue that placing personal details at the end of a chronological article is anachronistic (literally out of chronalogical order)[5] - a way of advocating this approach would be "If writing a chronological biography please integrate personal information into he chronology to avoid anachronisms." This is a very rough proposal but hopefully a start.--Cailil 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good way of thinking about it but I worry that phrasing it that way (however logical) will confuse people. How about, "If writing a chronological biography, please integrate personal information into the narrative to avoid disruptions in the flow of the chronology which might suggest that the editors prioritize certain aspects of the subject's life over others" or something like that. Awadewit 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gender bias template

Hi. I am here to propose a template with the suggestions of those at WP:HELPDESK. It can be found on User:Ed/Sandbox2. (for future reference: [6]) I thought of this idea after viewing a discussion on an article in which information that favored a male point of view was deleted from the article after being deemed as unencyclopedic. I thought that you could probably offer more suggestions as to how we can handle this template, to what name should we move it to in the Template namespace, and what categore we can set it to.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As a minimalist, I think that the message can start with "This article..." As for the content dispute, be sure to discuss the issue on the article or user talk page. Xiner (talk, email) 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As a trans advocate, I'd prefer a wording other than "both genders". Maybe something along the lines of {{Globalize/USA}}? "This article... presents primarily a male point of view"? I'm not sure what a better wording than "both genders" would be - would "all genders"/"other genders" annoy too many people? Not sure what a good name is either - will think about that. --Alynna 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, Alynna. futurebird 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So...what you're saying is that you want two different templates, one for males and one for females. Did I get that right?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not necessarily necessary - I was mostly looking for a template with good wording. There could be two, or there could be one - depends how important it is to point out which way the bias goes and whether different editors would focus on different biases... --Alynna 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, maybe I can change the wording to "...presents a fe/male point of view and does not describe a sexually diverse perspective." Is that better wording for our purposes?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that works. --Alynna 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know which template list I should affix this to?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting board

I added a "deletion discussion" section to the project page, with a link to the deletion sorting board at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender. The board is shared by several WikiProjects, and indeed anyone can use it. If you see any sexuality or gender related articles on the WP:AFD lists, please add them. Other xFD's and WP:DRV can be listed there too. — coel acan — 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Working Man Barnstar

Hi there. :-) There's a vote going on at Wikiproject Awards about the possibility of changing the name of the Working Man barnstar. Your input would be much appreciated. Cheers! Raystorm 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that this barnstar has now been edited to include gender or gender neutral title if preferred. baby_ifritah 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gender bias template

A gender bias template, located on {{Gender bias}}, has finally been created!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done I think this is an important template - and one that communicates its issue very concisely.--Cailil 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aims & Objectives

Hi all I just wanted to revive a discussion about the future plans for this project. If this is news to you please read the discussion about it in February. The cnsensus was to split the project, in effect creating a new one for Countering Systemic Gender Bias on WikiPedia, and to alter the aims and objectives of this one (Project Gender Studies) to looking after Gender studies articles and portal etc. I put forward a few alterations to the aims and objectives of this project in line with this consensus (and to bring it into convention with the standard woring of other WikiProjects):

Aims of this project

To create and/or improve articles associated with gender studies, gender theories and gender issues (including feminisms, masculinisms, feminists and transgender issues).
To maintain a gender neutral language (where appropriate) in line with the neutral point of view policy.
To create a thriving WikiProject.
To bring every gender studies related article up to featured article status.
To ensure that internal organisation of gender studies articles is consistent.
To maintain and improve articles within Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

What this Wikiproject is not

This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.
This project does not seek to write essay-style critiques of articles about gender-related topics.
This project does not limit itself to European/North American issues.
This project is not a space for writing feminist, masculinist or LGBT critiques of society.
This project does not seek to introduce any bias (to either articles, or Wikipedia in general), rather, it aims to improve the quality of articles, which deal with gender and gender studies, within the neutral point of view policy.
This project is not a vehicle for self-promotion (see confict of interest and verifiablity policies).

Have a think about this proposal and any alterations you want to make to it - I'm not in a rush, this needs to be done right.--Cailil 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. What does #2 under 'not' mean? --Alynna 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alynna my reading of that point is that WP:GS doesn't encourage editor's to write essay-style critiques of articles - just to improve them within Wikipedia policies (WP:ATT, WP:NPOV etc). I've just lifted #2 from the What this Wikiproject is not, if its unclear we should reword it--Cailil 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. I think the addition of "essay-style" makes it much clearer - perhaps replace "general" with "essay-style" or something? --Alynna 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think your right Alynna. If there are no more queries I propose to edit the existing aims and objectives to come into line with this discussion and the earlier one in January 07--Cailil 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Alynna 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well unless there are any objections I"m going to start removing the references to countering systemic bias from the project page and its templates. I could do with some help on the To do pages and some help just checking that everything is consistent. The changes will take a few days and I hope the other project "counterng systemic gender bias" (CSGB) starts up soon--Cailil 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC) A thought has just struck me, if there was need a temporary deptartement for systemic gender bias could be set-up here until the CSGB project gets going--Cailil 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

policies and practices around gendered categories

People interested in sexuality and gender issues: it seems to me we might want to consider doing some work to strengthen the policies and practices around gendered categories. For instance, this ongoing discussion about "women writers" as a category has been contentious. The fate of the category has yet to be decided and if it is deleted, there are implications for many other gendered categories. What I and I'm sure others find frustrating is the cycle of re-fighting the same or similar battles. I am relatively new here and so only have a partial sense of the history; are the policies as good as we can expect? The language seems reasonable to me, but some choose to ignore it. Advise/wisdom/sympathy appreciated! scribblingwoman (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) comment moved here from WP:DSSG by — coel acan — 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

recent edits to feminism

If anyone has the time please have a look at the recent discussion on talk feminism called perception vs reality. I am unfortunately too busy to go through this with User:Altoids Man for the moment. The disputed point is User:Altoids Man's editsaying that feminists are concerned with "percieved" gender inequalities.--Cailil 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for that request, we do need a larger audience. By way of correction, my claim is different than what Cailil asserts. My claim is that the article lacks the NPOV and I offer suggestions to move it towards NPOV. Kindly read the comment history, thank you. --Altoids Man 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

criticism of women's studies

After the recent AfD for Women's studies it was decided that the criticism section on Women's studies needed to be sourced and editted for due weight. a temp page for this rewrite is here.--Cailil 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cailil's further gnomish behaviour

You probably all know that I've been working on the graphics of this project since December but I've just got around to making an invitation template for the project. I've posted 3 variations here. As usual there is a purple version and a standard "apricot" version and finally a grey-white version. Please let me know what you think--Cailil 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. No preference on the colour. There needs to be a comma after the person's name and an 'a' at the beginning of "aimed"; otherwise it's perfect :) --Alynna 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Alynna, I'll fix that up now :)--Cailil ^talk 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I've gone ahead and used the grey version. This will do at least as a temporary measure--Cailil ^talk 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically gnomes don't publicize their work so I guess Gnomish is a misnomer! Anyway I found an example of a good style guide for articles from Project Atheist. Basically the guide explains a common layout and a common guide for criticism sections for that group. Perhaps we should work on a style guide along these lines. Perhaps we could eve colaborate with WP:LGBT on it?--Cailil ^talk 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies/to do

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)

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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia

This is not clearly mentioned in this WikiProject's aims and non-aims: Is there any place where I can find gender studies about Wikipedia, 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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: Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia 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.

put all the Zimbabwean women writers in Category:Zimbabwean women writers, and
also put them in either or both of Category:Zimbabwean novelists and Category:Zimbabwean poets, as appropriate
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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)