Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Feminism Task Force/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Phi Kappa Psi UV Gang Rape Section

Could I get some help here, please? —SlamDiego←T 02:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring Task Force page

Please pardon the mess. I'm in the process of restructuring the Task Force page and adding lots of exciting new features. Unfortunately, several of these features require bot runs, so I'm still waiting for them to run before I can add the content into the page. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see someone liked what they saw at WP:PHYS, :P. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for volunteers

The new Task Force page has a section for "Quick Help". I'm looking for people who can volunteer to fill slots in this table. Who can help with copy-editing? Who's good with content disputes? Anyone an expert on templates? Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sign me up for copyediting, refs and article rescue. Skomorokh 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Feminists needed ASAP

We have an article on Wikipedia that has a feminist director and writer and is in need of rescue. Someone wants to challenge the article and it should stay. There are only something like 5% of women in film that direct and even less that write. If you care about advancing women in an industry that has historically discriminated against them, please visit the following articles and vote to keep them: Kriss Perras Running Waters, First Canyon Rain, Running Waters Productions. Also there is a talk page about this director that is in bad faith. Vote to delete that page too. A20anna (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As much as I love to support women film directors, all of those articles seem to fall short of our notability standards, IMO. Of course others may have different opinions. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi All Feminists! It seems the process is not so fair for women here too. The idea was to take a vote on it. We passed the article to our small little Gmail friends and are getting hit for it. We doing what they said and voting. We are also Wiki users. We just don't edit a lot. We are readers and talkers in a group that meets weekly. Raindropt749 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The deletion process is a discussion, not a vote, BTW. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, we sort of got that - but really that whole discussion page from the outside looking in seems very pathetic. We see so many pages in Wiki that are just IMDb credits alone and many of them are pages about men, but Wiki has singled out this one woman stating the reason they want to delete it is it only shows IMDb credits. Just something to think about was our only point. Plus another point we were discussing is if that director has a PR firm, then it is likely the PR firm entered the information into IMDb and it was not user generated content. So the whole IMDb debate thing we thought was silly. But anyway this article here was something we were talking about. We were wondering is there a place in the feminist side of Wiki where there is a discussion ongoing about this women in film thing. We think maybe too if we start a larger discussion then maybe that is a way we can also help promote women in film. Here is one page on the subject from the Contra Costa Times: http://www.truthout.org/article/theyre-women-directors-and-few A20anna (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existance of other poorly created pages does not excuse this article. An article must stand on it's own merits, not on the fact that there are other worse articles out there. This article has been nominated for deletion because it is non-notable and heavily promotional. Being a woman has nothing to do with it, and assuming that we are deleting in simply because it is a woman violates WP:Assume Good Faith.
Also note that Wikipedia is NOT for promoting an ideology, feminist or otherwise. This violates Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality. The359 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think userfying the articles is the best decision for now. As soon as additional material is available it can be worked into the articles, leading to them being moved back to main space. I don't how you practice it here, but maybe they can be moved even to taskforce space like the way we do on our taskforce.
BTW: I just tagged an article I wrote some time ago, to be in the scope of your taskforce, Camille Bright-Smith. You may take a look at it. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if I understand userfying correctly - does that mean I post the article/content on my talk page and leave it there until it matures enough with enough research/citations to be on the regular space? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That's close. The articles would actually become subpages of your User page. Once the articles were capable of meeting the notability requirements (i.e. once the films were actually released) you could then transfer them back to their original locations in the Wikipedia article space. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT - awesome! Thanks! Would you show me how, because I will adopt this page as part of my Rescue Squad efforts. How do I create a sub-page for this so it can mature and grow with citations. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit note - just as an FYI - I won't want to do anything until I know how because when I did in the past I got called a sockpuppet...lol..so I ask stuff now. :0) Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Just copy the articles to User:A20anna/Kriss Perras Running Waters, User:A20anna/First Canyon Rain, etc. Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome - thanks! I appreciate your help. I really wanted to learn. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

suggestions for a category

I've just come across Marguerite de La Rocque, a French noblewoman who survived alone for some years on an island in what is now Canada. Her story was told in the Heptameron by Queen Marguerite of Navarre, and in subsequent re-tellings and adaptations, including in our current decade. She was punished by a male relative for having an affair: either she was abandoned on the island, and her lover joined her, or the other way around. Is there a category she could go in? It seems something between honour killing (as those who put them ashore would not have expected them to survive) and child exposure (as she was probably quite young at the time). I am half-looking for something along the lines of Category:People who violated the sexual norms of their time and were punished for it in ways that seem extreme today. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything similar to what you are suggesting, but I did add her article to Category:French exiles. Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a start. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

new articles to come

I'm a newbie editor at Wikipedia, my specialty for the last decade being 'global womanity' or unamity, which others name the returned Divine Feminine (Adi Shakti, Ma Adi, Ma Treyah, Messiah, Maschiak) -- in short global consciousness -- a world heart/mind/body of seven billion gender/personalities working as One. My work focuses on the aboriginal Grandmothers of the world, and their wisdom of all our relations, Mother Earth and all her children, that we must heal and return. Thus the next two articles I will be working on creating are the 'Thirteen_Indigenous_Grandmothers', and 'Divine-Feminine'. Meanwhile I will continue refining my first article SpiritWorld and roaming around expanding/assisting/refining articles focused on the sacred herstory of womankind for the last 400,000 years. In HER returning, Millennium Twain (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Figurine Dogu "à lunettes de neige", Jomon final … Japanese art in Musée Guimet Category ...

File:Figurine_Dogu_Jomon_Mus%C3%A9e_Guimet_70608_3.jpg

I was just threatened with blocking, because I added (referenced!) sacred woman's history information and Jomon period (stone age) artwork to this Feminism_in_Japan article. I'm new here, so don't know how to tell when I am (we are) a victim of authorized administrative violence, or merely an individual editors violence. Any suggestions? Are there other user interest groups that support the chronicling of women's, elders, native, global, cultural, oral, intangible and true herstory?Millennium Twain (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello MT. You really need to be careful about what you add to WP. Material that is not written in-style or that is not demonstrably referenced will be removed. Please read our guides and policies on tone, weighting and verification. Also you should read the manual of style for more info.
The warning you received was for violating our "no original research" policy - please read that policy and also please assume good faith of the editor who gave you the warning.
BTW this task force is not an interest group it's just a group of editors who know about feminism and who can help improve WP articles on the topic area--Cailil talk 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


I am as careful as any senior editor, Cailil. And provide as many, or more, and more pertinent references. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I observe that the purpose and process here is to write and edit ... not to vandalize and delete. A 'good faith' editor will edit, and or make suggestions -- VERY different from vandalization and deletion, and threats. Good faith is accompanied by good language, unlike many of our editors and administrators, yet I honor with language even those here who are unable to respect others. Faith in those who are abusive, is not likely to last. As to original research, I have never added any to Wikipedia. All my editing is referenced, both as to written published works, and as to web-published, and as to Wiki links -- all three. So there is nothing original ... other than all editing and all new articles at Wikipedia are 'original', because it and they are overdue ... that is why we are expanding the Wikipedia, because it is incomplete (not "original research").
Thanks for the start of a dialog!

Here is more dialog: Portal_talk:Feminism, though (being new here) I am not sure where it should be 'placed'!
for all our sacred relations, Millennium Twain (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The material you are trying to add might find a better reception at History of Japan. The Feminism in Japan article concerns the modern feminist movement in that country, i.e. late 19th century to today. Kaldari (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Article in need of rescue

The article Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has been proposed for deletion. It looks like the deletion may go through unless the article is significantly improved. Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

French translator needed

If anyone knows French, there's a decent article on Eugénie Niboyet on the French Wikipedia: fr:Eugénie Niboyet. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Will try it in my sandbox. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Can't wait to see the results. Kaldari (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Here's the link: Eugénie Niboyet. Apols for the delay, and thanks for finding it. cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there may be a problem. After looking over your translation, I couldn't help but notice a striking similarity to the text at Sunshine for Women. After looking at the history of the French article, it looks like the initial French article was either a plagiarized translation of the Sunshine for Women page, or they were both plagiarized from a third source. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've flagged the French article for copyvio, and started a discussion on the English article's talk page. Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Dang. No matter – good that you're onto it. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Female Porn Star Template

I thought I would bring this issue to the attention of the Feminist Task Force since no specific sexism task force exists as such. There is currently a debate on whether body measurements should be included in the female porn star template (and I believe they should not be). The essence of the the debate is that measurements are,

"not objective or static data such as their age. Conceivably, their measurements could change month to month. That is why I call this information voyeuristic, listed for entertainment. I also referred to a double standard since the male measurements are not displayed...Just because the porn industry might categorize/advertise people based on their measurements, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should imitate that in the template. Posting measurements of sexualized body parts for either men or women seems dehumanizing, as it treats them like a cut of meat, or specs for a car. If that is how they are treated in the industry, it should be in the body of the article, not the template" (link).

What do others think about this, and how could this template change be further supported?--SoundSuit (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support removing such parameters, but you might have a hard time convincing the people that use the template. BTW, {{infobox model}} also includes a measurements parameter, as does {{male_adult_bio}} (which is used for penis size). Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominating an article for the main page

It is Mary Wollstonecraft's 250th birthday on April 27. Does anyone know how we could get her featured on the main page "On this day"? I am unsure of the procedure, but will ask around. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done put her in the queue! Here. I would appreciate it if interested parties could tweak it, or keep an eye on the page in case objections are raised. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not put her picture there?--Taranet (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Done! (Whether it wins out over a ship is another matter. Keep an eye on it.) BrainyBabe (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate of possible interest

This deletion debate regarding a userbox might be of interest to this community. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible bias in progress

Contributors here may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt (2nd nomination), in which an article about a Dutch women's football team is in danger of being deleted, even though literally hundreds of English men's clubs at the same level (and below) have their own article. ðarkuncoll 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for a review of Take a Girl Child to Work Day

Hi all,

I've created Take a Girl Child to Work Day, an article about an annual event in South Africa. I'd appreciate any and all input, but specifically that outlined on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Take_a_Girl_Child_to_Work_Day/archive1

Thanks! d<3vid seaward | Talk 19:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn French

Marilyn French just died. Anyone want to help improve her article? Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Africana womanism

Helo everyone! You may be interested in checking out Africana womanism. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting statistic

Apparently, only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women.[1] Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And I read the other day of an upcoming convention that is advertising 50% off for women who want to come, but the line up of speakers is all male. Can anyone supply the name of the convention? It was definitely in English, probably US, this year, some techie topic (web 3.0?), but my memory and browser history are not what they could be. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm only surprised that the percentage is that high, so I think I need to cut back on my doses of cynicism. Any theories on why the gender disparity, aside from the obvious fact that breasts prevent we women from typing. :-P --Gimme danger (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
My personal hypothesis (and one which I found to be verified pretty much everywhere where there are more men than women) is simple lack of interest from the average Jane. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I doubt anyone is being compelled against their will to edit Wikipedia :) The question, though, is why does the average Jane lack interest in contributing? Kaldari (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know but in three years and two meetups I met one woman in person who tried to edit (she tried about once). Here is Randall Stross from The New York Times who says 25 years ago there were equal numbers of men and women in computer science classes. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Need feedback on a merger proposal

I made a proposal to merge Patriarchy in feminism back into the main patriarchy article a week ago, but no one has commented on it. Please take a look if you have some time. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Commented.  Skomorokh  22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride

is sujested for deletion. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Documents

I made Category:Historical documents about women. I think documents should be searched and included in cathegory. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna J. Cooper

Just a heads up - I've tagged the article with your project. Cheers. APK coffee talk 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged another one. APK that's not my name 12:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia rule on discrimination

Please see here: Proposal for stopping discriminative practices in writing in Wikipedia and in attitudes between editors or by administrators written by me in discussion at Discrimination Project page. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Third-wave feminism

Hello – the "Quick Help" section said to discuss content dispute issues here, so I wanted to point out that the article Third-wave feminism was heavily tagged for NPOV by an anonymous IP editor, User:193.95.195.167. While some of these tags pointed out clear problems with lack of references or with a lack of global perspective that had already been mentioned on the talk page, there were a number of tags for NPOV and peacock language issues that are less clear. I left a note on the IP users page asking them to clarify their edits here: Talk:Third-wave_feminism#NPOV_tags.

The editor has not responded, hence, I was hoping to get somebody who is knowledgeable about the topic to POV check the article. I don't think there's a substantial POV problem with the article that couldn't be fixed by rewording a few statements, but I'm not 100% sure of that. The other possibility is that the tags could have simply been left by somebody who is cranky about third-wave feminism, and is going to be upset by any article on the topic without a negative slant. I'm going to assume good faith and not assume the latter, but the possibility that the article was tagged unfairly remains a possibility. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look. It would be good to get another set of eyes on it again as I have limited time. My review is that there were some legitimate tags left by the IP. The larger "peacock wording' and 'pov tags' however are unexplained - and a number of ref-improve tags (not all of these were added by the IP) are superfluous. These superfluous, unexplained and incorrectly placed tags were removed. I also removed one sub-section as OR. I would suggest a thorough copy edit and fact check of the tagged sections though--Cailil talk 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

William Thompson Lusk

I have been working on User:NuclearWarfare/William Thompson Lusk for the past few days, and frankly, I was getting a bit bored of the man. I have taken notes (and cited inline) on the article itself, but I was wondering if other people were interested in converting the work from bullet notes to prose. The man, an assistant adjuntant general during the Civil War, did some interesting things; he was one of the first people to perform C-sections where both the mother and child lived and also came out in favor of germ theory very early. So, anyone interested? Awadewit suggested that I post here. NW (Talk) 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger discussion

I've proposed merging patriarchy (anthropology) with patriarchy. If you have any interest in the topic, please feel free to weigh in. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

redlink embodied subjectivity

Women's Equality Day in the U.S.

Greetings. I invite your input on a biography of Terry O'Neill (feminist). It is a new article and needs a photo. The United States celebrates Women's Equality Day on August 26, the anniversary of passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any other ideas for DYK on that day would also be great (lacking any other new articles I plan to propose this one). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I bet Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution could be expanded enough to get DYK. It's embarrassingly short right now. Kaldari (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Counting spaces we would need 8,165 characters total. Luckily DYK rules won't count the lists. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender based violence

I wrote my question also in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies: why don't you rename the page "Violence against women" in "gender based violence"? This is the correct definition because "is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men " (...), Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, United Nations -General Assembly dic. 1993

--151.50.177.40 (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Feminist views on prostitution and Feminist views on pornography

These two articles were created earlier this month, and the both cover important topics that Wikipedia has been in need of articles covering for a long time. However, there are problems with both article. Feminist views on prostitution has severe NPOV issues, as well as issues of factual accuracy in how it covers the feminist debate on the issue and how discusses (or rather, largely doesn't discuss) pro-sex worker perspectives.

The article Feminist views on pornography makes a greater attempt at balance, though has some low-level editorializing issues (which I've been taking steps to remedy). However, once again, the factual accuracy, especially the presentation of sex positive side, is problematic.

Both articles are in strong need of more references and rewriting to reflect verifiable content.

I've discussed more specifics on the talk page of each article.

Overall, the articles look like a bit like an undergraduate report on the subject by somebody who isn't entirely familiar with the debate and the issues at hand. Any help with cleanup would be greatly appreciated. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "Feminazi"

Even though the term "Feminazi" has nothing to do with feminist thought or philosophy, some of you may be able to help with the feminazi page as it needs more editing. Check out the talk page for current thought on the term.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a bit. Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ladies Aid

(cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations)

We seem to have nothing at all about Ladies Aid or Ladies Aid Societies. I can find plenty online about individual Ladies Aid organizations, but almost nothing about such organizations in general: e.g. when did they first originate (some time in the first half of the 19th century, I believe), what was the sequence and timing of their spread geographically and among various religious denominations (and when were the first secular Ladies Aid societies formed), what roles did they fulfill at what periods (charity work in general, of course, but when did they first become involved in nursing work, for example), what would be the equivalent term for Ladies Aid in other languages where such organizations exist?

Not really my area, but a surprising lacuna. I suspect someone else will have a better idea than I will of where to start researching this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Beyond my ken I'm afraid. There's a brief overview here that might be useful as starting fodder for an article.  Skomorokh  06:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's specifically on Jewish/Hebrew Ladies Aid, which were modeled on slightly older Christian ones. But could be one useful reference. - Jmabel | Talk 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
We do have The Ladies Memorial Association of Montgomery, although it's possibly a copyvio. Kaldari (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly a mess of an article. Semi-useful on one of the thousands of such organizations, but what we really should have is an overview. It's as if we had an article on one particular stapler and no article on staplers. - Jmabel | Talk 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Very true. I've added it to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences#Feminism. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New Projects subpage

I've created a new subpage for the Taskforce called "Projects". This is a page for listing ongoing projects created by members of the taskforce. I've added the National Women's History project from above and also created a new project myself to address the prevalent violations of WP:LASTNAME in female biographies. Please visit the new Projects page often and feel free to add any new projects that you come up with. Kaldari (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In the process of working on the Surname project, I've discovered lots of disappointing examples of women being consistently referred to by their first names in articles while men are referred to by their surnames or full names. Here was one of the more egregious examples, from Margaret Brent: "Margaret, her sister Mary and her brothers Giles Brent and Fulke Brent sailed together from England...". If you have 2 minutes to spare, stop by the project and fix an article or two. Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons reveals its systemic bais

  1. Commons features a nearly nude heavily-airbrushed glamorshot of Michele Merkin as its Picture of the Day.
  2. A female editor starts a discussion thread about how the image was offensive to her as she believed it was sexually objectifying.
  3. A swarm of male editors swoop in to express their surprise at how anyone would find the image offensive (as it is clearly an "educational" presentation of the female body) and explain that they can't be sensitive to everyone's opinions since otherwise half the featured images on Commons would be off-limits (after all, some people are offended by butterflies).

Hmmm, is it really that surprising that only 13% of Wikimedia contributors are female in an environment like this? If you'd like to join the discussion, be my guest, but don't say you weren't warned. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help review POTD selections in the future, I've created a page to make it easier. Kaldari (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like at least the photo should be removable from her Bio per WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I just replaced it with another one where at least she is wearing a top and is less sexual. Perhaps others could defend that if it gets reverted? All I have energy for. Also I noted that one argument is these are photos she herself made available for use. So at least we are keeping the photos more within wiki standards. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, Wikipedia is not censored. Period. Are you suggesting that we now need to change Wikipedia policy of blocking "sexually objectifying" images as a counter to systemic bias? That said, WP:BLP and Wikipedia image/editorial policy strongly goes against using gratuitous nude or cheesecake shots on someones bio page, even in the case of somebody like a porn star or a model where it might be related to their profession, unless that particular image had strong biographical relevance. However, that certainly does not prevent anybody from contributing a photo like this to Commons, because it might at some point be usable in context in a relent article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is censoring anything. The issue was two-fold:
  1. Should we have NSFW and/or sexually-objectifying ("cheesecake") images featured on the main page of Commons? (We don't on en.wiki.)
  2. People who object to images being featured (for whatever reason) should be treated with civility and respect rather than blown-off as simply not understanding our policies.
Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think an anti-pornography feminist point of view should be privileged over other points of view on Wikipedia and Wikimedia, either in terms of image contributions or article content. (And, excuse me, but breaches of civility? I'd say breaches of civility in the debate in question were pretty minor, and included some swipes by Madeline (calling for "sensitivity training" of other editors, for godsakes), the person who objected to the images.) As I said on the talk page at Wikimedia, I really see no difference in substance between objections to this image and muslims who have objected to inclusion of art that includes images of Muhammad. And something I strongly object to and call out – the use of "systemic bias" arguments (such as lack of participation of women or those from outside the Euro/American world) to demand that certain ideological perspectives that claim to represent such people (such as radical feminism or Islamism) be given privileged status on Wikipedia and related projects. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking about "image contributions or article content". We're just talking about featuring things on the main page. Just as en.wiki will not feature controversial images or articles on the main page (including images of Muhammad), we shouldn't be featuring them on Commons either. That doesn't mean they can't be uploaded or used in articles. What we choose to feature is an editorial decision, not a content decision. Maybe it's a trade-off in your view, but it's served en.wiki well so far. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the "swarm of male editors" – is User:Durova now consigned to non-woman status for having the temerity to disagree with Madeline and Kaldari's views on inclusion of "objectifying" images? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that was written before Durova joined the discussion. Indeed, she joined the discussion after first reading about it here. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Commons is nuts. File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg didn't make featured picture because it is cruelty to animals. They threw the cat something like 28 times. I've given up trying to argue with their choices. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Submission and Smile article

Just a quick thought in case it excites someone. Left this on article talk page: Submission and smiling has been linked by various individuals, for example particularly women and people of different races and classes in regards to those with more power. Here is result of searching books.google for "human smile submissive." I'm sure there could be lots more searches including using terms in first sentence. In case anyone is interested in exploring this idea more. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

National Women's History Project biographies yet to be written

Joseph Reagle lists 23 of the 174 woman listed in the National Women's Project Biography Center that we are missing articles on. See blog post. Is this something we should be concerned about? Are these women notable as a result of their listing?  Skomorokh  03:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I volunteer to write the first 5 stubs after you and three other people volunteer too. There might be only 21 to do. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello all (hi Susan!), I think this is grand. :) -Reagle (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Hi, Joseph! Lucky us. Please sign the members page. Great, great work on your comparison. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Adamson, Judith Francisca Baca, Sarah Buel, Juana Gutierrez, Rebecca S. Halstead, Maria L. de Hernández, Barbara Haney Irvine, Tsuyako Kitashima, Marian Van Landingham, Brownie Ledbetter, Susan Love, Cindy Marano, Monique Mehta, Mary Aloysius Molloy, Alicia Dickerson Montemayor, Nancy Skinner Nordhoff, Joanelle Romero, Harilyn Rousso, Mary Ruthsdotter, Tye Leung Schulze, Mary Tsukamoto, Wilma Vaught, Frances Elizabeth Caroline Willard

It's looks like he missed one: Mary Louise Defender Wilson, whom he incorrectly lists as Mary Louise Wilson (different person). Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there were a few mistakes. First four are done. The fifth one was linked to an existing article for Aileen Hernandez but there was a bio elsewhere. -SusanLesch (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Skomorokh, are you going to write some of these? The night I did five I almost dropped from exhaustion. It would be nice if others could find a second to volunteer to write one, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine work, Susan, congratulations. American history is far from an area of interest from mine, but I may chip away at these to keep momentum going. I've turned Tsuyako Kitashima and might flesh it out as the week turns on. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Good job. One of mine got picked out for paraphrasing, fair enough, so I just cut the whole thing down. I moved on to history of feminism where it looks like we were missing some early figures like François Poullain de la Barre, the first protofeminist Christine de Pizan and Modesta di Pozzo di Forzi who all had or now have articles (one thanks to Babel Fish and fr.wikipedia). -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Be careful about copying material from the French Wikipedia. They have rampant plagiarism and copyvios over there. Nice to see the new articles though :) Kaldari (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

I would like to register a complaint. History of feminism is at least 50% uncited. I am sorry to make a big deal out of this but it is a big deal—people come by and add something and then expect someone else to look it up and add a source. No deal from where I come from. It is so disappointing in what I thought was a B-class article. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple refs to the Introduction section and fixed a factual error. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone was valiantly removing "unsourced" stuff over time. And I should thank her instead of complain. -SusanLesch (talk)

WP material being published as rip-off book

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Atlantic_books_plagiarizing_Wikipedia. Feminism : A Paradigm Shift By Neeru Tandon [- a book published in India, appears to be largely a reprint of WP articles, on which copyright is claimed. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_studies/Feminism_Task_Force/Archive_2&oldid=1140226760"