Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Merge transsexual into transgender

Come join the discussion an whether or not Transsexual should be merged into Transgender at Talk:Transgender#Merge_transsexual_into_transgender Mell0nite (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion regarding Steak and Blowjob Day

You are invited to join the deletion discussion regarding Steak and Blowjob Day at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day (4th nomination). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943

Hey, Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943 could use a dedicated hand. I have many sources etc. Would do it myself but am too busy arguing. Cheers Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in sexuality topics

Hello! Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to sexuality. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures (as well as a Women's studies-specific guide). We’d love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy (Wiki Ed)/Sexuality studies. We're looking to gather feedback by April 18th, if you're interested. Thanks so much! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Denelezh

A well presented updated set of statistics on the Gender Gap based on information from Wikidata was published on 9 April as Gender Gap in Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Defining slut-shaming in the lead of the Slut-shaming article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Slut-shaming#WP:Undue weight with regard to changing the lead sentence to "people". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Gender equality/inequality by country

We currently have Category:Gender equality by country with three articles named that way, and a sub-category Category:Gender inequality by country with a lot more. No countries have both. Should the "Gender equality" articles be renamed as "inequality", and the categories merged? – Fayenatic London 12:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nascent gender-neutral language approach in Romance languages

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender#Major update needed for Romance languages
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV/N discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Definition of "trans woman" that may be of interest to participants in this WikiProject. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussions on gender neutral language

Are taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Amy Rose for good article reassessment

Amy Rose, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JOEBRO64 11:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Detailed Editing Proposal

Hi! For a class project, I would like to edit Gender Inequality in South Korea. What I hope to achieve by revising and expanding this article is to describe the natality, professional, and household inequalities that are often overlooked and reveal the debilitating effects of these injustices. I’ve included a list of technical reasons to edit this article below:

  • To begin, the article is rated as start-class and mid-importance by four Wikiprojects. It was also proposed for deletion 2 years ago.
  • There are a few grammar mistakes, and the style of writing can be dry and hard to follow sometimes, especially in the “Statistics and international rankings” and “Education & Employment” sections.
  • In addition to a two-sentence introduction, the article contains underdeveloped sections that are disorganized and vague – there is a section called “Analysis,” and the “History” section is a single paragraph.
  • Among its limited references, there are several news sources. There is also a “Bibliography” subsection which contains one book that can easily be added to the “References” section.
  • While the article does include core information and statistics related to the topic, expansion and further development of the information is needed.

I plan on editing and adding the following sections:

  • Gender Statistics
  • Global Rankings and international rankings
  • History
  • Culture
  • Natality Inequality
  • Professional Inequality
  • Employment
  • Household Inequality

The first thing I will add to the article is a paragraph to the introduction of the article, briefly describing the prevalence of gender inequality in South Korea and its effects. I decided to organize the article according to the three types of inequality that are most common in South Korea.

1 Gender Statistics // 2 Global Rankings: I will add more updated statistics if possible and organize these sections in a clearer way, potentially with bullet points or a table. I will also add a short paragraph regarding issues about specific indices and measurements under “Global Rankings.”

3 History: Since this is such a broad topic, I will focus on aspects of history that contributed to gender inequality and/or perpetuated gender inequality, such as the period of comfort women, Park Geun-hye’s election and scandal, etc. I will also show the changes or lack of change in gender inequality throughout history.

4 Culture: Similar to the “History” section, I will focus on aspects of South Korean culture that drive and perpetuate gender inequality, such as Confucian values, traditional gender roles and expectations, etc. The original article contains basic information about this already, so I will add more specific evidence and information from scholarly sources.

5 Natality Inequality: I plan for this section to be relatively short, but I do want to include information about sex ratios and South Korea’s missing women. If this section is too short, I will add this information as a subtopic under “Gender Statistics.”

6 Professional Inequality // 6.1 Employment: This section will revolve around the wage gap, employment, and gendered professions. I will describe gender discrimination in the workplace and explain why it occurs. I will also add information about maternity leave, the economic effects of underutilizing women, etc. This section will be the longest because it is the most studied gender inequality in South Korea.

7 Household Inequality: This section will focus on household inequality as a result of traditional Confucian gender roles. I will describe examples of this inequality, add more specific evidence and information from scholarly sources, and show how household inequality perpetuates many other types of inequality.

To review the references I plan to use for each section, please visit my user page. Ljk3 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Intersectionality

Hello, there is currently an RfC in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Intersectionality, comments are appreciated. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why "sex differences in" rather than "gender and"?

At present "gender and education" redirects to a page titled "sex differences in education" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_education

However the study of gender and education is more than simply the study of sex differences in education.

The absolute level of education that men and women are able to achieve is of importance, as well as the differences in male and female education levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwoolley (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Female hysteria merge discussion

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Female hysteria#Merge discussion. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns what to do with the Hysteria article since "hysteria" is not synonymous with "female hysteria," at least in the modern sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

  • Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
  • Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

  • Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Gender feminism merge discussion

Input is requested for a discussion at Talk:Gender feminism as to whether the contents of Gender feminism should be merged into other existing articles, and if so, whether the page should become a redirect or disambiguation page. Thank you. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion re: lead image at Woman

Current lead image at Man
Current lead image at Woman

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Woman#A woman is more than a vagina?. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Levivich 04:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Toxic masculinity

There is currently a discussion ongoing about whether to make Toxic masculinity its own page. Interested editors may wish to participate at Talk:Hegemonic masculinity#Proposed split "Toxic masculinity". Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

Please help us decide the best way to credit the Wachowskis in articles about their films.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

After birth abortion

I wonder if any of you have an opinion on this redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

--

Presented without comment: an article about the phrase:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/02/after-birth-abortion-how-right-wing-web-sites-turned-my-old-article-into-a-fake-news-story.html

Have you heard the news? There’s a movement afoot to legalize infanticide. They’re calling it “after-birth abortion.” Those disgusting liberals! We’ll remember in November.

I was surprised to see comments like these flying around the Internet this week. I’m the guy who wrote the article they’re talking about. It’s two years old. Now the right-wing echo-sphere is passing the story around as though it’s new. People think “after-birth abortion” is a real thing or a policy proposal. They don’t even read carefully enough to notice that I was criticizing it. I’m getting tweets and comments depicting me as a baby killer.

This is the Internet echo chamber at its worst. How does it happen?

Here’s the rough story. Two years ago in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a couple of philosophers outlined a case for infanticide. They called it “after-birth abortion.” I explained their argument and challenged pro-choicers to explain how lines could be drawn against such an extension of abortion rights.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice: Jewish religious clothing

A Request for Comment that may be relevant to this WikiProject is open at Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment. Ibadibam (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Prostitution in Japan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Prostitution in Japan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Japan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 12:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

New gender identity page

A new gender identity subpage has been added to the Manual of Style:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity (shortcut: MOS:IDINFO).

Discussion about this new section, and about Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines in general, is taking place on its talk page:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Handling of "female privilege"

Hey all. I'm fully aware of how contentious this term might be, but I wanted to raise my concerns with where it currently rests in this WikiProject.

Currently, the page Female privilege redirects to Men's rights movement#Female privilege, a subsection of the "Issues" section of that article. This subsection is a little out-of-place and I feel that a write-up on "female privilege" would belong better on Male privilege, Social privilege, or Ambivalent sexism.

The reasoning behind this is that, regardless of its validity, I don't think that "female privilege" is an idea that's exclusive to men's rights movements. I'm sure that the editors here have a better idea of where it belongs in this WikiProject, but as it stands now, it seems rather misleading to send a person to Men's rights movement when they search for "female privilege".

Btw, I started a discussion to change the redirect but was told it would probably be a better idea to go to the WikiProject itself. So here I am. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What would be most helpful is finding published, reliable sources that discuss the concept of "female privilege" outside the context of the men's rights movement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender-blind

Please comment. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move (Masculism)

Hi all, your considered input would be appreciated here:

Talk:Masculism#Requested_move_13_May_2019

One proposal is to move the Masculism article to Masculinism and template:Masculism sidebar to template:Masculinism sidebar

An additional/counter proposal is to move template:Masculism sidebar to template:Boys and men sidebar and template:Masculinism to template:Boys and men

WanderingWanda (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Note: This notice originally presented the proposals incorrectly but this has now been corrected. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Men nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men. Leviv ich 15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Feminism and Masculinism navigation templates

So if you go to the Woman article or the Girl article you'll see a feminism sidebar, and if you go to Man or Boy you'll see a sidebar for something called "Masculism" (which my spellchecker does not think is a real word) with a prominent link to the Men's rights portal. This feels like an absurd case of false balance to me.

  • The lead for the feminism article says the feminist goal is the "political, economic, personal, and social equality of the genders" and credits feminism with accomplishments like "women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property."
  • The lead for the men's rights movement says "the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized some men's rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of patriarchy and male supremacy" and "The movement and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic" and that the movement is "notably anti-feminist".

Can we really call these two movements at all equivalent? Do we really want to be giving such equal weight to them? Yikes. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the articles Man and Boy are listed prominently in the sidebar and on the portal page. I don't know why that is, since neither article says anything about "masculism" or "men's rights". So the article links should probably be removed from those pages first. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
That seems like a good start. Masculinism/masculism is a very vaguely-defined term and doesn't really encompass a coherent ideology, but to the extent that they do, those are generally pretty far out of the mainstream in a way that makes them tangential to the basic articles about "men" and "boy" - it seems WP:UNDUE to place so much focus on them. (I agree that it also feels like WP:FALSEBALANCE.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You are either going to have to nominate Template:Masculism sidebar for deletion or propose that it is reformatted. We can't just have a template and not have it used, or not have it used on the articles it has designated as central to the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've thought about trying to reformat it so that it is mainstream and not fringe. (It could be named something like "The Human Male", for example, and instead of having a big link to "Men's Rights" it could have a big link to "WikiProject Gender Studies", etc.) But then...wouldn't it be kind of silly to have a big sidebar that says something like "part of a series on men" when the entire encyclopedia is a series on men... WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda A bit late to this but the Men's rights movement portal has been deleted WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Men's rights movement. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the links to Man, Boy, and Masculinity from both Template:Masculinism and Template:Masculism sidebar, since none of the target articles had any information on masculism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to revert. It is the masculism article which references man, boy, and Masculinity. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
See the recent talk thread. "Man" and "boy" aren't subtopics of, or defined in terms of, "masculism", nor is "masculinity" (rather the opposite in the last case). Per WP:NAVBOX, the subject (masculism) should be mentioned in all the articles, and all the articles should refer to each other to a reasonable extent. From what I can see, that isn't the case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: Thank you for referring me to a talk thread which includes only yourself, from a few hours ago. These templates seem to be constructed specifically to mirror one another, so let's see if you've applied the same standards to the other set of articles:
It seems like you have not applied the same standards to girl and woman that you stated above. It also seems like you didn't consider resolving your concerns in the other way, which would be to add the necessary mentions to the articles which are involved (or do nothing and acknowledge that these articles are related to each other implicitly). As such, I'm reverting to the status quo, and you are free to gather consensus, help make the changes you feel are necessary to the articles, or leave your concern on the relevant talk pages and let someone else take care of it.
Added: I'll also point out per mention of the portal above that a simple solution would be to just link to Portal:Gender studies. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
However the templates are constructed, feminism and masculism are not mirrors of one another except in the most abstract sense. That said, I haven't looked at Girl or Woman yet, but I would support the actions you indicate. Since navboxes are very similar to categories, I think we should apply the same standards of verifiability and neutrality as we would to categories, and ask ourselves whether "masculism" is a defining characteristic of the linked articles. While that's arguably the case for the those under "Movements" and "Notable persons" in both templates, it's not the case for Boy or Man. I don't think we should be implying that such general topics are closely connected to a fringe area of concern that's mostly connected to a very particular kind of contemporary politics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Woman just now, I see a total of four mentions of either "feminism", "feminists", or the "feminist movement". So I think that article does belong in {{feminism sidebar}}. Girl is more marginal – the term is mentioned in a couple references but not in the text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the parity on both sets of templates is worth preserving, and the terms mentioned are central enough to them. The WP:NAVBOX concerns are surmountable by adding mentions of the central topic to the articles. Alternatively, if you want an WP:IAR justification, the links are just darn convenient to have in both nav template sets and not worth losing. -- Netoholic @ 04:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Parity between feminism and "masculism" is WP:FALSEBALANCE. There's a reason my spellchecker underlined one of those terms in red but not the other. Really, the "masculism" boxes should probably be deleted. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That's one POV. But I'm not arguing POV over the topics... I'm arguing for parity in Wikipedia navboxes that serve the same relative function in parallel sets of articles. Added: and as for your spellchecker, its because "masculism" is an uncommon spelling. I've put in an RM to resolve this. -- Netoholic @ 04:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, it seems backwards to include these links based on the potential to add material on masculism to the target articles – that raises the question of whether such material would be duly weighted there. I'm inclined to doubt that such a fringe view deserves that kind of mention. In any case, working out those issues should be the first step.

I don't think the convenience of these links is enough to outweigh the policy-based objections (notably WP:NPOV). Any article relating to the subject is going to have links to at least one of these topics already, and the others are easy enough to type in the search bar. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

These simple navigation links have been in the templates for several years. Let's wait for additional input and keep WP:STATUSQUO. There is no consensus for any particular change, and there is WP:NORUSH. You've raise the issues, now give some time for people to react/respond and fix what can be fixed. I note you still haven't touched the feminism templates, so your one-sided, sudden, intense push and edit-warring on the masculism templates is looking more and more like POV editing. Same goes for now trying to cite WP:FRINGE about a topic which is clearly not a "fringe theory", but is acknowledged as an ideology that has many supporters. Relax please. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly not a 'fringe theory' is a POV, and a debatable one. With the men's rights movement, which is associated with actual hate groups, listed as the main topic under Masculism § Topic areas of interest, I'd say WP:FRINGE definitely applies. (An idea can have "many supporters" and also be fringe; see climate change denial, for example.)

WP:STATUSQUO is not a policy, but WP:ONUS is; the burden is on those favoring inclusion to show consensus, which age of content alone doesn't do. Whether or not Man, Boy, and Masculinity are central to the topic of Masculism, masculism is not central to them, and is not even mentioned in those articles. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. Until that is achieved (assuming it can be done from a neutral POV), the links should be removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also per the guideline, The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. That's not the case with Masculism and Man, Boy, or Father, and is questionable even for Masculinity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In response to the initial question: no, the movements are of course not equivalent. Masculism has no place on "Man" or "Boy". The false balance is clear: Masculism#History dates the movement back to the 1980s, whereas first-wave feminism originates in the 1800s. And this is more of a sidenote, but the article on masculism is in horrific shape: it reads "One of the first movements that aimed towards promoting a better understanding of the forces applied to men within society was the [1980s] mythopoetic men's movement", but of course the century-old academic discipline of feminist studies is dedicated precisely to the forces applied to men (and to women) within society. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Some potential alternatives to having a Masculism sidebar on the articles for Man, Boy, etc:
      • The Feminism sidebar. The goal of feminism is equality of the genders and therefore it concerns males as well as females.
      • A new side bar that doesn't exist yet. Perhaps a Gender Studies sidebar that could compliment the bottom-of-the-article Gender Studies template that already exists. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Masculism#History (and many other parts of the article) needs a good deal of correction. It has a more common spelling "masculinism", and that appeared right alongside "feminism" (Nash's Pall Mall Magazine, 1915). Actually, going back even earlier, both terms originated as descriptions of people who physically exhibited the secondary/minor sex traits of the opposite sex (The Medical Fortnightly, Volumes 31-32, 1907) - what might today be called "butch" or "effeminate" I suppose today. That said, I'm not sure why the origin dates would matter in the least to the question at hand, which is how best to add navigation to the set of articles for men, like we have for the set of articles related to women. As for WanderingWanda's suggestions.. you must be trolling. Is that really the definition they teach in school today? I'm almost tempted to say go ahead because I'd love to see the laughs at Wikipedia's expense when screenshots of Feminism sidebars and iconography being used on male-specific articles gets spread around. If that's a real suggestion, you're out-of-touch with wider society. -- Netoholic @ 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and added the Feminism sidebar to Man. (As for the idea that people might laugh at it, well, I figure it is good to spread laughter in the world!) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd support replacing the current sidebar with either a generalized {{Gender studies sidebar}}, or possibly splitting the current bottom-of-the page and sidebar templates into something like {{Men's rights}} and {{Men and boys}}. If there's only one nav template for topics related to men and boys, it should not have a non-mainstream ideology such as masculism as its main subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the sudden agita around these templates. Masculinism/masculism, like feminism, represents an incredibly wide degree of viewpoints - for example, it is perfectly normal for a person to be both masculinist and feminist if one believes in equal treatment of the sexes or, on the other extreme, if they think that sex differences have valuable distinctions. Masculinism is much broader than strictly "men's rights" - that has its own topic for a reason - just as feminism is broader than women's rights. I believe its clear that certain concepts (boy/girl, man/woman, etc.) that are present in the headers of both {{masculinism}}/{{masculinism sidebar}} and {{feminism}}/{{feminism sidebar}} are so core to the subjects as to be obvious for inclusion in their respective templates. If people want to instead talk about renaming them to simply {{women}}/{{men}} and broaden their scope a bit by removing the implication of being about activist movements, that's fine but it seems pedantic due to a couple header links. -- Netoholic @ 20:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That definition of masculism was recently added by you, and your source is somewhat contested. Whether "man"/"boy"/"woman"/"girl" are core to the subjects of masculism/feminism isn't the point. Having them linked prominently on the template gives the false impression that masculism/feminism are core to them. —23:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
To repeat, The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article, especially when the template is a high-visibility sidebar. Nothing has been done to address this concern so far. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Lesbian erasure

Hoping to encourage someone to create an article or a section about this topic. For further details on the current situation, please see Talk:Lesbian erasure#Redirect target. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Transgender for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Transgender is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transgender until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion in progress

I've started a new RM for both {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}}. Interested editors may wish to participate at Template talk:Masculism sidebar. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Formal equality

Please discuss at Talk:Gender_equality#Is_formal_equality_the_same_term_or_should_it_have_its_own_article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone interested in rescuing student project on women right's in Korea?

See Talk:Women_in_South_Korea#student_project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Having a bit of a problem at Women and video games

We seem to be reaching an impasse at Women and video games. The argument that is being made is that the article is overly "gynocentric". Third parties, other participants, and extra eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Defining/relaying the concept of "woman" at the Woman article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Woman#Proposed edits to lede. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A related RfC has commenced: Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Singular they pronouns for cisgender subject

There is a discussion at Farhad Majoo concerning a cisgender subject who prefers singular they pronouns; input welcomed. Funcrunch (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about a photograph depicting an intersex person

There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Graphic but educational image of intersex person on main page? about the publication, on the Main Page, of a photograph depicting an intersex person. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Gender

Portal:Gender, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gender and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Gender during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer

Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thought this was relevant to this WikiProject and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Referring to ships as "she"

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"She" vs. "it" for ships. This is a perennial discussion that never seems to reach consensus. Notice of this round of discussion was sort of spammed to various ship- and military-related projects and pages (i.e., places of strong concentration of fans of using "she" for ships, and of male editors in particular), so I'm notifying some other wikiprojects and such that are apt to have wider views and demographics, for balance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Male privilege

There's an RfC at Talk:Male privilege#RfC about sociological concept vs phenomenon about whether the first sentence of the article should define Male privilege as a concept in sociology or as a phenomenon that indisputably exists. More editor input is needed. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies → Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies – Cf. Gender studies. PPEMES (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support as a technicality per the WP:CONSISTENT principle (but more as to the names of almost all other wikiprojects). There are a handful of over-capitalized ones remaining that should also be moved. However, we might want to consider a mass-RM of all of them later, to either a "WP:WikiProject foo bar" format, or (if we decide they are proper names) to dispense with consistency with the article titles (strictly speaking, WP:CONSISTENT only really applies as a guideline per se to mainspace and other reader-facing content), to "WP:WikiProject Foo Bar" format. The current mixed-casing "system", though nearly self-consistent at this point in favor of "WP:WikiProject Foo bar", is actually weird and unlike the titling of pretty much anything, ever. We could also consider eliminating the pointless camelcase, and just go with either "WP:Wikiproject foo bar" or "WP:Wikiproject Foo Bar". I've had it in the back of my mind to address this for years, but it sounds like a bit of a headache, so I've avoided it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's worth considering eliminating "WikiProject" altogether in the name of conciseness (which would make this project just Wikipedia:Gender studies.) Just a thought.
(And if I can be even bolder, perhaps it's worth considering whether WikiProjects are active enough these days to keep around...) WanderingWanderingWanda (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gender dysphoria article discussion

Please see Talk:Gender dysphoria for the ongoing debate. The relevant talk page sections are 4. Let's move away from U.S.-centric articles (DSM-5 vs. ICD-11); 5. Recent lead changes; 6. Text; 7. Multiple issues cleanup tag; and 8. 2nd paragraph of lead. ¶ I believe input from WP:Gender studies members would be helpful. (I have no idea if Project members will agree or disagree with my personal views. My intention in posting here is to (hopefully) have a broad, well-informed discussion.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your input requested

Input from members of this project is requested at Talk:Bachelorette party in regards to this edit. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 16:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Cake and Cunnilingus day

Hello, There is already an article Steak and blowjob here, and while it might have no engyclopedic interest it remains and that is respected. At the other hand , while the equivelant, Cake and Cunnilingus day,it is as "real" and popular,much more that S&B day was when the article created,mostly in europe,but still there's no page on wiki after so many years! It is surprising. I would like to make an article but i dont know how to.I really want to contribute making wiki not biased , not sexism. If you would like to,you could help with this page User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day Georgeof1001 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Diriliş: Ertuğrul

A tv-series, rather popular. Some media have noticed that there are women in it. If you have an opinion, please share at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Navigation templates: Masculism

There is a clear consensus here that neither template should remain as it is, especially with regard to the page links therein. I also see a consensus that the templates should be renamed. However, there is no particular consensus on what that name should be (I see both "men's movement" and "men's rights movement" as suggestions, and those are two distinct, albeit related, things).

Therefore, the outcome of this discussion is to reformat and/or cleanup the two templates, with no consensus on new name(s) at this time. I suggest opening a new discussion, perhaps as a formal RFC or RM, to determine a consensus on new names for the templates. –Darkwind (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is related to an earlier proposal to rename/reformat {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}} that failed to reach consensus. To wit, should these templates be reformatted to reflect their focus on the men's movement instead of masculism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • See also the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Archive 5#Feminism and Masculinism navigation templates. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Reformat. A look at Masculism and its talk page (including archives) clearly indicates that this is not a coherent, well-defined topic distinct from the men's movement itself, so WP:NAVBOX #1 is not satisfied. The majority of the topics listed on both templates make no mention of either "masculism" or "masculinism". So WP:NAVBOX #2 is not satisfied either.
    These templates were apparently created to imply a false balance with {{Feminism}} and {{Feminism sidebar}}, but the topics are not comparable. Several of the listed topics do relate to the men's rights movement, and a symbol used for the MRM was used on the {{Masculinism}} template until last year.
    I would suggest merging the general men-and-boys-related links to the newly created {{Boys and men sidebar}}, and keeping only the men's-movement-related links here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably not. Couldn't you say the same about feminism and the women's movement? While it is true that masculism has far less coverage than the "men's movement", I see no reason why it's supposed to refer to the men's movement and why feminism isn't supposed to refer to the women's movement. It would seem one is an ideology (timeless; an -ism) and the other is a movement (period in time). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Women's movement is a redirect to Feminist movement, which is a subtopic of Feminism. I don't see any discrepancy there. Whether "masculism" should refer to the men's movement is not within the purview of this discussion, and is for published sources to determine, not you or me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Honestly, that infobox is just a god awful mess. It's just a hodgepodge of "men stuff". Hegemonic masculinity doesn't really seem to relate to masculism at all. It looks alot more like a critical theory developed by a trans-academic. Marriage of convenience had no more or less relevance than German Shepherd. Men sometimes get married, and also sometimes own German Shepherds. But people who are not men do both also. Men's health has no more or less relevance than Adam's apple or Prostate or Male pattern baldness. They're just random "men stuff" included for no particular reason. GMGtalk 16:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support heavy trimming of both and renaming to "Men's rights movement". Template:Masculism in particular is quite a mess. All the articles on gender studies topics like Occupational sexism, Rape, Gender equality need to go, and some are clearly there just to build a narrative of male victimhood. Cut all the divorce and parenting stuff. They might be the main talking points of the men's rights movement but their association with the men's rights movement isn't a defining feature of them. Only the manosphere articles and the men associated with them are appropriate to list. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this is just an attempt at scope creep. I also advise people to take a look at the discussions held on Talk:Masculism/Archive 6 and see this long fight Sangdeboeuf has been engaged in to creep the scope of the main article itself. He has long claimed this is about "false balance" when in fact his goal seems to imply a false congruity between masculism and "men's movement". Talk:Masculism/Archive 6#Scope changes in fact addresses this by demonstrating that masculinity<>femininity AS masculism<>feminism AS masculinism<>femininism. This is simple English language usage (for starters) and these terms are not directly equivalent each other, just as they are not equivalent to the men's movement or women's movement. -- Netoholic @ 16:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Netoholic: Re-reading Talk:Masculism/Archive 6#Scope changes, I don't see any agreement that the topics are so neatly paired as that. Masculism and masculinism are currently described as synonymous, and there was no consensus to split them into separate articles. Navboxes should be formatted according to article contents that currently exist. (I know I just re-opened the discussion after requesting a close, but I felt I had to address this point.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support revising & renaming; many unrelated items thrown together. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: since discussion has petered out, I've posted a request for closure at AN/RFC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Double standard, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

TERF has an RFC

TERF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Loki (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sexual slavery in Islam

I would be grateful if some people with subject knowledge could assess the sweeping edits currently being done to that article. I'm getting the impression that this is the wholesale replacement of one interpretation with another, based on very selective sources, but I simply don't know the subject area. In any case I suspect these big deletes/replacements need some talk page discussion before being implemented. - Also notified WikiProject Islam. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about stubbing an article

Talk:Queer theory § Stubbed I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 03:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Aroused peer review

I've put the good article on the documentary film Aroused (film) for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aroused (film)/archive1. Feedback to help improve its quality further would be appreciated, thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New film article - Women of the White Buffalo

I created a new article about the documentary film, Women of the White Buffalo. Let me know if you want to help with further research, Right cite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

The page Transsexual has been proposed to be renamed and moved to a different title. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion on the article talk page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Satronia Smith Hunt up for deletion

U.S. Civil War veteran, who was a male impostor to do it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Gendered associations of pink and blue

Newly released stub article Gendered associations of pink and blue needs your help in expanding it. Can you lend a hand? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

OR at Judith Butler

The section of the Judith Butler article covering her major works suffers from extensive WP:Original research and may need to be dramatically cut back. Your help in rewriting or citing this section would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gender

There is a discussion on the Gender talk page that could use more input. Funcrunch (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback would be welcome at the James Barry Rfc

There is currently an Rfc going on at Talk:James Barry (surgeon)#Request for comment: Pronouns attempting to determine what pronouns to use for James Barry (surgeon). Your feedback at the discussion would be welcome. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Riane Eisler needs total rewrite

This biography is rated as high-importance for this WikiProject. I've stubbed the article, after reviewing all references and the editing history. The article had been written almost entirely by paid editors and SPAs with few if any other edits. I couldn't find a single BLP-quality independent source that had ever been used in it, nor could find any with quick, general searches. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Overview of projects supporting women

At Women in Red we have been compiling a historical overview of projects and related initiatives in support of women's coverage on Wikipedia. As Gender studies not only appears to have been the first wikiproject to address the need to reduce gender bias but now has multiple language extensions on Wikipedia and Meta, we thought we should bring the listing to your attention. It would be useful if those interested could make any necessary changes, additions or suggestions for improvement. We would appreciate the inclusion of links where appropriate on your project pages.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Women's shelter

Greetings,

Request for inputs: A Peer review request has been made for the article Women's shelter to brainstorm and understand information gaps and uncovered areas and to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved, please do share your inputs at the review page.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joan of Arc

I have nominated Joan of Arc for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Angels and gender

There's a discussion at WP Christianity about the gender of angels and whether they should be treated as non-binary. Enjoy! Skyerise (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity" category at CfD

WikiProject members and page watchers may wish to view or comment on this deletion discussion about Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about lists of female and male detectives in fiction

Hello there! There is a deletion discussion about the List of female detective characters and List of male detective characters going on, mostly based on if it makes sense to have two different lists based on gender. If someone here has any input on this, that would be great! Daranios (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, it was kept... Well, both lists were kept. Hmm. What if a detective is non-binary? What list would they go in? --Historyday01 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads -talk- 07:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy § RFC: Should the websites she surveyed be described as "anti-trans" in the lead? Firefangledfeathers 23:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers 23:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of WP:DS tags

Hi! I have added a bunch of gender and sexuality discretionary sanction tags to a number of articles, mostly in intersex-related articles and a number of sex/gender difference medical articles as well. Please see my contribution log to see which ones (this is a short, on-going process). Just thought I'd give a notice here. Feel free to discuss the merits of these actions in my talk page, as this has been a WP:BOLD edit and I am very open to discussing/reverting these changes. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Jenner and Page - Genuine question

Hi there, hope you are all well. Why does Wikipedia have Bruce Jenner winning Olympic medals but it doesn't have Ellen Page starring in Juno? Sorry if this has been answer before but it's important I know. Thanks! Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Page's former name is mentioned in a footnote. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah I have been given a reason. It is because Ellen is a dead name and Bruce is not: "following the guidance in MOS:BIO: In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events."

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thanks. Talib1101 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Misandry

There seems to be a certain lack of consensus at Misandry. So I am asking interested editors at all related wikiprojects if they would care to help in some consensus building. Though editors should be aware that this topic can be divisive. Talpedia (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for H.D.

I have nominated H.D. for a Featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. I am sorry for the clumsy notification, its my first nomination for a FAR. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Transgender and transsexual" renaming discussion

There is an ongoing discussion concerning renaming "Transgender and transsexual" categories to just "Transgender". The discussion can be found here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Help with new page The "Mighty Girl" Effect?

I just made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_%22Mighty_Girl%22_Effect because it seems to be a documented scientifically proven phenomenon with no wikipedia article. I have no idea how to get it attached to other gender studies/feminism articles on Wikipedia. Help please? Oathed (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

A user has requested that the page Reverse sexism be renamed and moved to Discrimination against men. Interested users may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Reverse sexism#Requested move 17 May 2022. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to look at redactive/reverting edits

I am a former professor, now involved in startup buainesses. I occasionally edit out of WP retirement when I turn to a WP article for added sources and context, from a mainstream business news sourse.

Today, after being informed of a Spotify-related article in the NYT, I turned to the Call Her Daddy podcast article, and noticed both its datedness, and earlier removal of content that I thought well-sourced and substantive. Because the content that was removed related to varying views about whether the content and aims of the podcast align with some form of feminism, I raise the propriety of those edits here.

Specifically, after my first edit to return some of the inappropriately removed earlier content — wherein I added only a single well-sourced sentence regarding the former owner-distributors of the program in question — that edit, and indeed, its entire section were deleted.

Here are the two diffs that are relevant.

1, and

2.

The original edit regarding feminism and misogyny was removed, ostensibly because it was seen as "mostly conjecture and WP:UNDUE" (with which I disagree, largely). The return of one sentece of it today was removed (along with rest of section), because it was stated that reputable discussion of the attitudes and mores of the owner-distributor of the podcast were not relevant (again, a perspective with which I disagree).

I propose that the removed content be evaluated by several here, and the initiative be taken from this Project to evaluate what of the original content is worth fighting to have remain.

Note, the overall positivity of the article with regard to the podcast content, the removal of original content questioning the feminist bona fides of the program, and the rapidity with which my attempts at scholarly additional edits were identified and reverted, suggest the possibility that this article might have devoted editors committed to maintaining the current limited scope and perspective of the article.

Note, I edit intentionally from IP, which also may be the reason for the very rapid attention and reversion of these edits. (I will not return to logged editing, because of the various forms of bias and trolling that can take place here, I am least concerned that someone trace me via IP to Chicago, or whatever city I am currently visiting.) With regard/cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:2584:8D15:B064:AD34 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Move request at LGBT

A user has requested that a topic within this WikiProject, LGBT, be moved to LGBTQ. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 28 May 2022. Thank you Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to List of fictional non-binary characters edit notice

You are invited to join the discussion here, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Presently, the edit notice for the List of fictional non-binary characters states that only character "is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful." This replaced the previous version which stated that only characters are eligible for the list if "their gender identity matches in some way human experience of gender." Comments from members of this project would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC notification

Members of this project, and readers of this page, might be interested in participating in the RfC here: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A request for inputs

A user has tagged WP:NPROF article Ibtissam Bouachrine for notability concerns and requested to improve the same. Requesting suitable inputs into the article if topic interests you.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Article titled Female (gender)

Comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on first sentence of Trans woman

Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Trans woman § RfC on first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: A TikToker, ... , other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.

Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.

Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for help with the article Violence against men

Hello, there was a recent AfD for the article Violence against men. A group of us are working to improve/fix this article because it's an important topic and when we started it had a some inappropriate and misleading information in it. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Joan of Arc

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Gender studies, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Is Genspect Anti-trans? Request for comment

A while ago I started a thread on the Genspect talk page titled Anti-Trans revisited but it faltered, so I'm opening it up the community as an RFC and asking for people to discuss whether we should describe them as anti-trans in the lead as it's been a repeated source of contention in the page. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Islamic sexual jurisprudence, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for H.D.

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/H.D./archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Male expendability

There is currently an active request for comment on Male expendability. Feel free to add your voices. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yoshiko Kawashima

At Talk:Yoshiko Kawashima#Gendering, there is a discussion about pronoun use in the article. Participation is welcome and appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Research Proposal: Wikidata to Gender Rescue on Wikipedia (WiGeData )

We have submitted a research proposal under the Wikimedia Research Funds and we would like to hear your opinions about it: Wikidata to Gender Rescue on Wikipedia (WiGeData )

Thanks so much!!

Núria Nferranf (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For infomation there was some discussion of the proposal and suggestion of consultation with this project at Wiki Women in Red last November. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

LGBT and Wikipedia

New article: LGBT and Wikipedia. Project members are invited to expand and improve. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the "Wi Spa controversy" Article Identify the Suspect by Name?

Please consider contributing to the "Should the Article Name the Suspect?" discussion at Talk:Wi Spa controversy. --Mox La Push (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for GLaDOS

GLaDOS has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting additional input

There is a discussion at the Helms Amendment talk page which would benefit from input from people involved in this project, regarding the use of the term "anti-abortionist" to describe Jesse Helms. Wes sideman (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting contributors for Draft:Female (gender)

More contributors are needed at Draft:Female (gender) to get it ready for mainspace. So far, @Beccaynr and I have done lots of research and work developing the article, but it still has a ways to go. Reach out to us on the talk page if you have questions! The void century (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Ess

Noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Ess here, as the nom claims that the organization, which represents cross-dressers, is transphobic. Comments would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Gender identity and Gender

Much of the content between Gender and Gender Identity is largely the same. I have proposed a merger at this link, notified the other wikiproject involved, and invite people knowledgable in the area to comment. Born25121642 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth#Expansion of LGBT figures in fiction and myth page, asking how to expand the "Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth" page so as to more fully encompass topics about LGBT characters and media within the scope of "fiction and myth", which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons

Hello! Over at the village pump, there's an RFC on MOS:GEDNERID addressing the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons. Alerting here given that the page transgender and nonbinary are both listed as falling within this WikiProject. Thanks, everybody--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Are these women notable?

Should Sonalee Rashatwar and Virgie Tovar have articles? Dwanyewest (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 5 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 5 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Incel

Hello, per point 3 of WP:PM, I am notifying this project of the merge discussion at Talk:Incel. This is based on a just recently closed AfD (see page of incels.is). The AfD closed with a consensus to merge, but since that consensus, I have increased the incels.is article a lot in sourcing and content though, so a merge may now not be necessary. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Transsexual § Transgender and Transsexual Merge

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Transsexual § Transgender and Transsexual Merge. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Maxwell Confait Move Discussion

There's a move discussion at Talk:Murder of Maxwell Confait, which belongs to this WikiProject. The question is whether the recently updated MOS:GENDERID policy suggests that Confait should principally be referred to as Michelle. Any thoughts (especially by persons able to do research!) would be greatly appreciated.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested at 'Cisgender'

A discussion is taking place about whether the central topic of the article Cisgender should be changed. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Man, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography

Comments invited.

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Reproductive rights in Latin America page

Hello everyone! I am a student at Rice University editing the Reproductive rights in Latin America page. I have details about my plans on my user page, as well as a draft of my proposed plans in my sandbox. This article fits into the WikiProject Gender studies category and is currently rated mid-importance. Dml108 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_studies/Archive_5&oldid=1221711621"