Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism

Main page	Talk page	Members	Resources	Popular pages

missing women philosophers

Hi all - as of late, I've been working a lot on bios of women philosophers. We were missing a lot of people who were not only notable, but foundational in their fields. Alison Jaggar for instance had no Wikipedia article at all until I wrote it this week. I would like to eventually transform my own efforts in to something like Keilana's Wikiproject Women Scientists, except for philosophers. I haven't set up all the infrastructure yet for an actual wikiproject, but for now I've put up a page in my own user space - here - that has a partial list of notable women philosophers who currently don't have articles. If anyone has the time and inclination, some help filling some of them out would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add new names to the list, too! Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is great! I've added it to the open tasks, where I'm trying to assemble all of these lists. Wadewitz (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The following links may help: (redacted) (Potential) women philosophers who aren't yet tagged as women philosophers - note this second one will have many false positives; that's because we intersect Category:Philosophers with Category:Women and it turns out that as you dig down, Category:Philosophers contains many people who aren't (like Category:Minimalist_artists) and Category:Women contains many people who aren't women, but it's a useful start and may help in cleaning up the Category:Philosophers tree... You can tweak the depth to get more or less hits, but as you go deeper the false positives increase... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

erp the ghettoized search doesn't work. Need to think about it more carefully. Here's one that sort of works just for American philosophers: link, but the general case is harder to solve.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Stub needing help

Role of women in Pakistani media is a horrid article, but we should almost certainly have coverage of the subject, and there may be enough to keep it separate from Women in Pakistan. Either way, I wanted to give it a chance... Steven Walling • talk 08:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just redirect. The Women in Pakistan is a decent article, and I don't see a need for a breakout of just media here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

More categories up for deletion/discussion

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism#Article alerts. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

General discussion?

I confess I get confused on category deletions like these sometimes and who has time to look at them all. Is there some general pattern or dubious principle we should be aware of to motivate us to look further? Thanks. CM-DC talk 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:EGRS contains the guidance around gendered categories. There are several things to be aware of (1) Normally, we don't do gender + whatever intersections - you have to establish that the gender + {topic} is notable and discussed in multiple RS (2) In the particular Canadian case, there aren't any other instances of {Women} from {Province}/{City}/{State} - we do have intersections around {gender} + {certain jobs}, but not classifying people by {Gender} + {location}, with the exception of country-level boundaries. Another general rule is to not create last-rung categories - where you are splitting the last level of a category by gender - the reason is that this tends to ghettoize women, and those of you who followed the women novelists mess remember what a brouhaha that caused. I've done a lot of work in de-ghettoizing categories (I did Category:Female duellists yesterday), and developed an algorithm here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#Deghettoization_algorithm that those interested in deghettoizing can use, but in some cases it's frankly better to delete the categories if they are more likely than not to lead to ghettoization (or if they violate WP:EGRS). Properly dealing with non-diffusing categories, which most gender-based (and ethnic/religious/sexuality) categories need to be is actually quite complex, as you can tell by reading the algorithm. Therefore, consensus at CFD seems to set a relatively high bar for ethnic/sexuality/gender/religion-based categories. I'm really hoping to get more support around dynamic category intersection, which would allow us to do {gender} + {arbitrary topic} without the need to actually categorize thousands of articles as such, but for now not many people have expressed interest in helping - drop a note on my talk page if you'd like to assist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• @CM-DC: Thanks for starting this discussion. If you click Special:RecentChangesLinked/ Category:Forbes_most_powerful_women you will see what will happen when you click on the Related changes of Category:Forbes_most_powerful_women. This is the type of watchlist information that will be lost when this particular category is deleted. Am I making sense? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

But that applies to any category, so I'm not sure why it would be an argument to keep this particular one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statistics about deletion of women biography categories

During the two weeks period starting October 30, 2013 there have been 24 women-biographyCategories nominated for "discussion" compared to only 35 non-gendered CfDs. Since there are far less women-related categories to start with, this should be cause for alarm. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I ran the statistics on this, and got a different result. I looked at all CFDs since October 24, and then filtered to just categories that were meant to contain people; then tagged each category with a "gender". I found 22 "female" categories, "23 "Male" categories, and 62 "neutral" categories that were nominated for discussion (this should really be 82, since there was a group nom of Honorable degree recipients). So, I'm not sure what exactly is the cause for alarm. A large number of the "women" cats nominated were from a tree that you yourself very recently started in Canada, which is basically a duplicate of Category:Women in Canada by province or territory. It's hard to know for sure, but there are likely more "Women/female" specific categories than male/men specific ones overall in the tree - in either case, there are something like 6-8,000 categories for each.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that you don't see the problem with 22 women-related categories being discussed for deletion in the last couple of weeks because you're specifically the one who nominated a dozen of them to be deleted. Your chart doesn't address that you've made the lion's share of nominations involving women here as well as being the editor responsible for nominating categories about feminists and rape victims for deletion. Maybe you find this too small a point to mention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to say I nominated several of them, and I've nominated many other categories for discussion over the years. I do a lot of maintenance on categories, and sometimes, deleting or merging categories is the best way to keep the system working. I've also, in the past few weeks, populated and deghettoized Category:Female explorers, Category:Female travelers, Category:Women travel writers and Category:Female duellists as well as a few others, in some cases adding dozens of more bios to these categories. I personally think we shouldn't genderize everything, it makes categorization more difficult and is more likely to lead to ghettoization - this is my experience from looking at hundreds of gendered categories over the past 6 months - the vast majority of them just end up segregating women, which caused a massive hoopla when it happened with women novelists. I'm currently working on a proposal to get rid of the down-to-the-lowest-level genderization of acting categories that is now going on, which I find excessive (e.g. Category:American telenovela actresses, Category:Actresses from Phoenix, Arizona, Category:Male actors from Kansas City, Missouri), etc - we got rid of the "women writers by state" categories, and I think we don't need this level of split for actresses and male actors either. I'd really prefer we just used simple category intersections instead. You make it seem like me nominating Category:Murdered feminists is something bad (you'll notice it is trending towards a strong delete, so I'm not the only one who thinks murder victim + ideology is a bad mix), but it's not - it's simply an intersection we shouldn't start categorizing by; the nomination of Category:Radical lesbian feminists is also b/c it's a violation of WP:EGRS, which says you should not have last-run categories, which this one is. (the last rung rule is why we don't, and shouldn't, have categories like Category:Lesbian voice actors from New York. The reason I've nominated the Category:Rape victims category is because I don't think every woman who has been raped needs to have this tag at the bottom of her page - I think it's a BLP nightmare personally - there's a huge difference from coming out publicly in one interview and saying you've been raped, and having "rape victim" alongside "author" and "born 1945" and "from Seattle, WA" - as if being raped DEFINES you - per IAR, for this particular category, I think the potential costs outweigh the benefits - if we add it to a victim and they see it there, they may be insulted; if we take it off a particular victim's category, they may think wikipedia is saying "You aren't really a rape victim" - it's a no-win scenario. In any case, if you have thoughts on the categories, please comment at CFD, we could always use more editors there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Simple category intersections don't include significant entries flagged by editors. 2. You removed the hatting on this chart and it seems disruptive and distracting. It gives the impression that you're trying to drown out discussion by hosing raw data at people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who started this discussion, I simply added data to it that contradicts the initial assertion of "this should be a cause for alarm". If we're going to have a discussion of what gets nominated at CFD, let's start with the raw data. Stop making bogus accusations of "drowning out discussion". Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean about category intersection missing "significant" entries. Category intersection will always be more inclusive than any specific intersection tags that are placed. If there's an error, it can be easily corrected.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Elaqueate Now that the noise here has died down, I wonder if you could explain in simple words what hatting means. I have been around Wikipedia for over six years and I am still struggling with the jargon. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Hatting" usually refers to adding hatnote templates atop articles, though I don't know how it was used above. Could have meant "heading". czar ♔ 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh I think I was using imprecise jargon myself. I saw someone write about "hatting" when they add some header and footer text to a discussion or table to collapse it. Help:Collapsing I think this table including all of article recommendations could be collapsed in some way, whether it's called hatting or collapsing or whatever. The point this table supports could have been made in a sentence, or a link to a table, or a collapsed table, instead of a wall of listings. I tried to collapse it earlier but was reverted. If someone else responds with another table, this discussion would be even more difficult to follow for a new reader. How do people feel about collapsing the 100-line table below so that it's one line that can be expanded? __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatting is usually used to refer to use of {{Hat}} tags to shut down or close off one aspect of discussion, but can also be used for collapsing (instead of Hatting), although it's slightly imprecise. I don't Think We need to collapse that section just yet, it can remain until we get to the bottom of the issue Ottawa brought here. Feel free to add to the table columns or rows as needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you want your table to dominate the talk page, but maybe people have a different opinion. I believe that if someone responded to one of your questions with a 100 line table, you would have collapsed it in a heartbeat. Please collapse it if requested. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think if we continue this, we will spend more time talking about collapsing the table than the contents of the table or the issue at hand. In general, it is fine to collapse your own comments, or to hat comments that are off-topic, but it is not generally considered permissible to collapse other's comments just because you believe they are too long, or at least you are welcome to try but should drop the stick if reverted. I suggest you drop the issue and engage in the actual discussion which Ottawa opened.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed your list in the interest of clarity, you reverted. I left it alone until I was pinged here. If you think you're not deliberately obstructing discussion, fine, but a table of raw data wouldn't universally be considered "a comment". It just seems a cheap way to hide the fact that women's categories put up for discussion spiked in the first half of November by adding undated raw listings from October. But I'm not going to collapse your list, if you think it proves something as it is. But the fact that a second section had to be started might tell you something about how helpful it's been. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Obi's findings including the week previous to discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This table lists the 3 previous weeks of categories nominated for discussion that were meant to contain biographies. If the category in question was for an individual man or woman, or designed to contain only men or women, it was tagged with 'M' or 'F' - otherwise it was tagged with 'N'. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Should the table be collapsed? # Gender? Category Result 1 F Category:Rebbie Jackson deleted 2 F Category:Women by ethnicity under discussion 3 F Category:Joan Baez delete 4 F Category:First Nations women under discussion to merge 5 F Category:Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic winners speedy rename 6 F Category:Women Turing Award laureates delete 7 F Category:American women computer scientists delete and merge 8 F Category:Fanny Crosby delete 9 F Category:Canadian women computer scientists merge 10 F Category:Wikipedia categories named after women delete 11 F Category:Women who committed suicide trending towards merge with Female suicides 12 F Category:Radical lesbian feminists under disc 13 F Category:Forbes most powerful women under disc 14 F Category:Women from Quebec under disc 15 F Category:Women by province or territory in Canada under disc 16 F Category:Women from British Columbia under disc 17 F Category:Women from Brampton under disc 18 F Category:Women from Ontario under disc 19 F Category:Women from Ottawa under disc 20 F Category:Women from Karachi under disc 21 F Category:Nadia Ali under disc 22 F Category:Janelle Monáe under disc 23 M Category:Swami Vivekananda rename 24 M Category:Esham under discussion 25 M Category:Joss Whedon delete 26 M Category:Paul Auster delete 27 M Category:Robert J. Shiller under disc 28 M Category:Slim Burna delete 29 M Category:Dale Carnegie delete 30 M Category:Toby Driver delete 31 M Category:Jeremy McKinnon delete 32 M Category:Austin Mahone delete 33 M Category:Men in politics delete 34 M Category:American men's basketball players no consensus 35 M Category:NBA Finals MVP Award winners deleted 36 M Category:NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award winners deleted 37 M Category:NBA Slam Dunk Contest champions deleted 38 M Category:American League Most Valuable Player Award winners kept 39 M Category:National League Most Valuable Player Award winners kept 40 M Category:Bruce Johnston under disc 41 M Category:Works about Michael Moore some merged 42 M Category:Craig Vetter under disc 43 M Category:Royal lovers under disc 44 M Category:Bruce Johnston delete 45 M Category:Web series male actors merge 46 N Category:People from Greater Sacramento renamed 47 N Category:People from Prosperity, South Carolina merge 48 N Category:Oil painters under discussion 49 N Category:Shubdubs delete 50 N Category:National Basketball Association players from Latin America merge 51 N Category:Tokusatsu actors delete 52 N Category:Wrestling promoters under discussion 53 N Category:Chefs of Washington, D.C. under disc 54 N Category:Chefs of New York under disc 55 N Category:English Anglican priests under disc 56 N Category:New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees delete 57 N Category:Computer scientists from Melbourne merge 58 N Category:Computer scientists by IFIP Working Group delete 59 N Category:Members of IFIP Technical Committee 1‎ delete 60 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.3‎‎ delete 61 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.6‎‎ delete 62 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.7‎‎ delete 63 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.8‎‎ delete 64 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.1‎‎ delete 65 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.2‎‎ delete 66 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.3‎‎ delete 67 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.8‎‎ delete 68 N Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.11‎‎ delete 69 N Category:Bedroom musicians delete 70 N Category:Gibraltarian football biography stubs delete 71 N Category:National Basketball Association scoring champions delete 72 N Category:Artists who exhibited in Metavisual Tachiste Abstract delete 73 N Category:Canadian Newsmakers of the Year delete 74 N Category:Honorary degree recipients from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne delete 75 N Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Lausanne delete 76 N Category:Honorary degree recipients by universities in Switzerland delete 77 N Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst delete 78 N Category:Former honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst delete 79 N Category:Honorary degree recipients by universities delete 80 N Category:MusiCares Person of the Year delete 81 N Category:Tarling deleted 82 N Category:Grand Am drivers renamed 83 N Category:Public philosophers renamed 84 N Category:Bengali Hindus under disc 85 N Category:Somalian emigrants keep 86 N Category:Meghalaya politician stubs withdrawn 87 N Category:Rape victims under disc 88 N Category:Wrestling promoters under disc 89 N Category:British sheriffs under disc 90 N Category:Recipients of the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom Award under disc 91 N Category:IPI World Press Freedom Heroes under disc 92 N Category:Saints of Ottoman under disc 93 N Category:People on Forbes lists under disc 94 N Category:Murdered feminists under disc 95 N Category:Presidents of the Romanian Union of Plastic Artists under disc 96 N Category:Pseudonymous musicians under disc 97 N Category:Pseudonymous rappers under disc 98 N Category:Egyptian American directors under disc 99 N Category:Voice actors who committed suicide under disc 100 N Category:Orkanger IF managers under disc 101 N Category:BLP articles lacking sources from 2013 speedy delete 102 N Category:Military careers under disc 103 N Category:Honorary Fellows of universities and colleges under disc (at least 20 categories have been nominated here) 104 N Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe television under disc 105 N Category:Master of Sports of the USSR under disc 106 N Category:People from Dzershinsk, Russia under disc 107 N Category:Honoured Masters of Sports of the USSR under disc Questions regarding the CfD table above @Obiwankenobi: Nice table. Did you construct it yourself? How difficult would it be to add the nominators as a column? XOttawahitech (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC) You'd just have to look up each nominator and add it. Yes I built it in excel then converted to wiki format. I think most of the eponymous cats were nominated by Jerry Pepsi.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC) @Obiwankenobi: You said earlier that you "ran the statistics on this" which statistics did you refer to? (and did you notify user:Jerry Pepsi that he is being discussed here?) XOttawahitech (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I just meant I calculated the number of person-holding cats nominated and whether they were gendered or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Opinion sought Should all women-related categories be part of this wikiproject? Background: Many women’s categories are being nominated for "discussion" Some of these nominations are showing up in this wikiproject’s alert section Categories that belong to this wikiproject show up in the alerts section when they are nominated Women’s categories that do not belong to this wikiproject will not show up when they are nominated for "discussion" So, do all women-related categories belong to this wikiproject? If not is there another project that encompasses all of them? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC) There are at least 5400 categories with "women" in the title and over 1200 with "female" in the title [1] - from women's sports, to women writers, to women activists, to just plain biography categories for women (e.g. American women). I really don't think all of these should be added to the feminism project, as most of these categories have little to do with feminism. I'd suggest women's sports categories should go to the relevant sports projects, women activists/etc categories should go to feminism, women's literature should go to literature projects and perhaps women's history projects, and individual bios of women should go to biography project, any relevant country/field projects, and only feminism if the woman in question is a figure of note for feminism. One specific example is Category:Princesses - I don't think this isn't that closely related to feminism, I think adding it to the royalty project is largely sufficient, we have a large tree of royalty-related categories and assigning to that project is sufficient. I would make the same arguments for men's categories; I think it would be silly to add "Kings" to Wikiproject:Men's rights for the same reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Note: I created Category:Category-Class Feminism articles and Category:Category-Class Women's History articles and updated the templates accordingly; once the jobs refresh the templates those categories should be populated with all of the categories tagged across these projects, but we may have to wait a few days or even weeks for that to happen (sigh).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Classification of revenge porn

The revenge porn article has undergone substantial changes, updates and improvements since someone from Project Feminism last gave it a classification. It would be great if someone could give the article another look-through to see whether it warrants an improved classification.

Thanks! Amphiggins (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Art and Feminism edit-a-thons

FYI, this is happening around North America - and hopefully beyond - on Feb 1 2014! Get involved! SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter to the infobox for films

The discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter may be of interest to members of this project.  Sandstein  21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting that discussion Sandstein. I think it would also be worth exploring setting up a Bechdel test property for films over at Wikidata. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Girl power! Press kits? Not long to go now.

Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism mentions press kits being sent out. On the talk page of this imminent event, someone asked how to obtain these press kits.

Does anyone know? Please help preserve the legacy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

They mentioned it in their last email to satellite coordinators. I thought the main coordinators might see the talk page sooner since their email response times have been lengthy. czar ♔ 02:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi I am one of the organizers and can send you a press kit. Please email me at dhoward@metro.org Thanks!OR drohowa (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Article SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen marked for deletion 27 January 2014

Apologies for not knowing how to do this correctly. SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen was marked for deletion 27 January 2014. There currently are 3 keep votes of 3 votes total. --Ronja (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal

I am a rather new editor and have been working on the page for The Courage to Heal a resource for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I am trying to get the page tagged for being non neutral, but since I am the only editor working on the page who feels the page is biased the tag keeps getting taken off. The editors currently working on the page have stated that "Bass and Davis got it wrong" and the page seems to written with this assumption (which is the viewpoint of a few but certainly not by all). As this is a resource for survivors of sexual abuse it feels especially important to have a page that accurately conveys the content of the book. I would so appreciate feedback on how to improve the page (I found a number of sources but they have been edited down to a single sentence by the other editors) as well the support of other feminist editors. Thoughts? Suggestions?MorningGlory3 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The comment above is an example of forum shopping: see WP:FORUMSHOP. MorningGlory3 already started a thread about the article at the neutral point of view noticeboard, but it doesn't look as though it's going their way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of this rule. My intention is to bring attention to the page to see if more experienced editors would be interested in working on it. MorningGlory3 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Clean up an article?

Hey, would any of you be interested in helping clean up the article Women's Rights are Human Rights? It originally focused on the Clinton speech, but it seems like the term has been around for quite a while. I added some sourcing but it needs a lot more than what it has now. I'd prefer that someone more familiar with writing feminism type articles edited it and cleaned it rather than myself, as I really don't entirely know what I'm doing. I could bang out a quick, shallow article but it requires the editing prowess of someone who really understands the term (and knows the sources!) beyond the typical quick overview given in the average classroom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Gender neutral categories

I think Category:Fictional swordsmen should be called Category:Fictional sword fighters and Category:Fictional giants should be split into giants and giantesses. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)