Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Archive 2

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

message: I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Japanese social development of the Modern girl in the 1920s; though distinguished from flappers by writers both then and now, the development shares many similarities. If anyone here is familiar with it, I would like to invite you to expand upon the article; I am currently reading about it for class, but (a) admittedly, am not that interested in the subject, and (b) am not a sociologist, gender-studies student, or anything like that and do not really know how to re-express or describe the concepts well. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LordAmeth, your work on the Modern Girl is really good.  I have no background in Japaneese culture and knew nothing about the Modern Girl until I saw the article so I don't feel knowledgable enough to edit it.  I have just one issue; if indeed these Modern Girls were not real people but representations of "ideal" women - should the first line be amended to make that clear immediately?  It could also be important to show the influence, if any existed, of the New Woman on the Modern Girl. --Cailil 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Modern girl]] 

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

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

message: Save Indian Family is an Indian mens-rights organization, and the article is seriously one-sided.  I am having trouble finding enough outside sources about the organization to effectively rewrite, especially as the article is aggressively defended, apparently by people associated with the organization.  Anyone else want to give this page a try? -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got around to looking at the page today.  It is a really problematic page - the attacks launched on you are pretty unjustifiable.  I'll put some time into researching the SIFF over the next few days.  Hopefully one of us will find some reliable objective information : ) --Cailil 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Feminists are the ones, who publish notoriously one-sides articles. Here is an example: Bride burning.Save Indian Family is a registered Indian Family rights organisation, because feminists have betrayed innocent women in India by receiving huge funds from Western countries(US and Europe). Innocent women, elders and even minors are getting jailed due to pressure from feminist lobbies. It is important that feminists in these countries desist from cultural invasion and exporting "legal terrorism" to India and China in the name of promoting Gender Equality. By the way, why "Gender Studies" is not about study of both genders "equally"? Both Fisherqueen and Cailil are not Indians and they have little knowledge on the subject and still, due in shear intolerance, they  deleted large number of citations and content from the article with malicious intent to push it towards an Afd.Newageindian 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newageindian Gender Studies is the study of all genders equally.  I have not editted the SIFF page.  I looked for consensus and proposed an edit, as I have already said on the SIFF talk page.  It has already been pointed out to that you were in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.--Cailil 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is being resolved amicably on the article's talk page.  If anyone has anything to contribute to the article please do at Save Indian Family.--Cailil 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this the right project to look to for help?

message: I've standardized the archives box on this page. I was just wondering if we should introduce some bots for archiving?--Cailil 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: I'm having quite a lot of trouble. It's explained here.--futurebird 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a similar project for racism? 

message: Hi all, I've just gone through all the pages link to WP:GS.  Of them 2-3 may need deletion/merger.  Most of the rest are Start class, a few B class and one A class.  There are also a few stubs.  If any one can add to these articles please do.--Cailil 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm off to surf the stubbs. futurebird 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of Articles Feb 2007 

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

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

message: Hi! I wasn't aware of this project until today but have been trying to do something similar in my own area -- literature -- by working on lists of women writers, adding or updating biographies, etc. As some of you might have noticed, "Women writers" was recently removed as a category.  Here is the discussion. I began  a call for re-institution of the category here. According to  "Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality": 
:Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as :Category:LGBT writers or :Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one.
So, I have begun to draft such an article. It's not ready for prime time, but when it is, people friendly to the project of expanding Wikipedia coverage of women's writing are invited to stop by and let us know what they think. scribblingwoman 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good - I"ll be happy to see what your draft. --lquilter 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Come on by! scribblingwoman 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's writing as an area of study 

message: I have started to notice that some biographies tack a "Marriage and family life" section on to the end of the article. This is especially true of men (women's marriages tend to be described as more significant as more than men's). They add a couple of sentences on the man's marriage and children after describing his life and career. I would like to suggest that this project advocate that such information be integrated into the narrative of the person's life, especially if it's told chronologically. Awadewit 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. futurebird 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd look at it from the point of view of notability.  Unless someone's marriage is notable it doesn't deserve a seperate section.  However, this creates the converse problem - if an editor considers that the subject's marriage is not notable enough for the narrative section (which can be a reasonable editting decision if the narrative deals solely with the subject's professional life) they would look to include a 'personal life' secion as secondary to the overall notability of the subject which is a perfectly reasonable way of improving Wikipedia.  In truth I don't believe such a position could be advocated for in general.  Specicially when the narrative is a general biography, told chronologically, you've got a point Awadewit. But should articles be written this way?  Personaly i'd be more concerned that non-notable personal information (such as marriages and children) are given a privelaged position in the narratives of notable women.  Consider the differences between Marie Curie (a general biographical narrative) vesus Ashley Judd (a sectioned biography based on notability).  I know this is a bizarre comparision but the format may be of interest forthis discussion.--Cailil 13:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the "Career" and "Personal Life" distinction (that structure seems to be used a lot for film and TV stars). Those articles have tended not to do what I am talking about. It is the articles that chronologically narrate the person's life, along with their career, and then add the marriage on to the end. See, for example, William Wilberforce and Thomas Dixon, Jr.. I don't think that it's an accident that I've only seen it in nineteenth-century biographies (I assume it is in 18th, 17th, etc. as well). I understand Cailil's point about the foregrounding of women's marriages as well - it is a problem. It always seems to be more important when a woman gets married than when a man does. I don't want to force biography writers into one structure or another, but I think that if they choose the chronological structure, they should be aware of some of its potential pitfalls. Awadewit 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with you are Awadewit and I would concur that it is no accident that the articles in mind are C19th they are reflecting a C19th style of representing a man's life story.  My only difficulty is that the formula of words for advocating such a position would need to be very carefully considered and at the same time easily understood.  One way of doingthis would be to argue that placing personal details at the end of a chronological article is anachronistic (literally out of chronalogical order) - a way of advocating this approach would be "If writing a chronological biography please integrate personal information into he chronology to avoid anachronisms."  This is a very rough proposal but hopefully a start.--Cailil 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good way of thinking about it but I worry that phrasing it that way (however logical) will confuse people. How about, "If writing a chronological biography, please integrate personal information into the narrative to avoid disruptions in the flow of the chronology which might suggest that the editors prioritize certain aspects of the subject's life over others" or something like that. Awadewit 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing concern

message: Hi. I am here to propose a template with the suggestions of those at WP:HELPDESK. It can be found on User:Ed/Sandbox2. (for future reference: ) I thought of this idea after viewing a discussion on an article in which information that favored a male point of view was deleted from the article after being deemed as unencyclopedic. I thought that you could probably offer more suggestions as to how we can handle this template, to what name should we move it to in the Template namespace, and what categore we can set it to.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a minimalist, I think that the message can start with "This article..." As for the content dispute, be sure to discuss the issue on the article or user talk page. Xiner (talk, email) 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a trans advocate, I'd prefer a wording other than "both genders".  Maybe something along the lines of ?  "This article... presents primarily a male point of view"? I'm not sure what a better wording than "both genders" would be - would "all genders"/"other genders" annoy too many people?  Not sure what a good name is either - will think about that. --Alynna 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point, Alynna. futurebird 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So...what you're saying is that you want two different templates, one for males and one for females. Did I get that right?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's not necessarily necessary - I was mostly looking for a template with good wording.  There could be two, or there could be one - depends how important it is to point out which way the bias goes and whether different editors would focus on different biases... --Alynna 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, maybe I can change the wording to "...presents a fe/male point of view and does not describe a sexually diverse perspective." Is that better wording for our purposes?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that works. --Alynna 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender bias template 

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

message: Hi there. :-) There's a vote going on at Wikiproject Awards about the possibility of changing the name of the Working Man barnstar. Your input would be much appreciated. Cheers! Raystorm 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note that this barnstar has now been edited to include gender or gender neutral title if preferred.  baby_ifritah 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working Man Barnstar

message: A gender bias template, located on , has finally been created!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done I think this is an important template - and one that communicates its issue very concisely.--Cailil 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender bias template 

message: Hi all I just wanted to revive a discussion about the future plans for this project.  If this is news to you please read the discussion about it in February.  The cnsensus was to split the project, in effect creating a new one for Countering Systemic Gender Bias on WikiPedia, and to alter the aims and objectives of this one (Project Gender Studies) to looking after Gender studies articles and portal etc.  I put forward a few alterations to the aims and objectives of this project in line with this consensus (and to bring it into convention with the standard woring of other WikiProjects):
Aims of this project
# To create and/or improve articles associated with gender studies, gender theories and gender issues (including feminisms, masculinisms, feminists and transgender issues).
# To maintain a gender neutral language (where appropriate) in line with the neutral point of view policy.
# To create a thriving WikiProject.
# To bring every gender studies related article up to featured article status.
# To ensure that internal organisation of gender studies articles is consistent.
# To maintain and improve articles within Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
What this Wikiproject is not
#This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian. 
#This project does not seek to write essay-style critiques of articles about gender-related topics.
#This project does not limit itself to European/North American issues.
#This project is not a space for writing feminist, masculinist or LGBT critiques of society.
#This project does not seek to introduce any bias (to either articles, or Wikipedia in general), rather, it aims to improve the quality of articles, which deal with gender and gender studies, within the neutral point of view policy.
#This project is not a vehicle for self-promotion (see confict of interest and verifiablity policies).
Have a think about this proposal and any alterations you want to make to it - I'm not in a rush, this needs to be done right.--Cailil 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  What does #2 under 'not' mean? --Alynna 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alynna my reading of that point is that WP:GS doesn't encourage editor's to write essay-style critiques of articles - just to improve them within Wikipedia policies (WP:ATT, WP:NPOV etc).   I've just lifted #2 from the What this Wikiproject is not, if its unclear we should reword it--Cailil 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I get it.  I think the addition of "essay-style" makes it much clearer - perhaps replace "general" with "essay-style" or something? --Alynna 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think your right Alynna.  If there are no more queries I propose to edit the existing aims and objectives to come into line with this discussion and the earlier one in January 07--Cailil 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. --Alynna 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aims & Objectives 

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

message: If anyone has the time please have a look at the recent discussion on talk feminism called perception vs reality.  I am unfortunately too busy to go through this with User:Altoids Man for the moment.  The disputed point is User:Altoids Man's editsaying that feminists are concerned with "percieved" gender inequalities.--Cailil 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks you for that request, we do need a larger audience.  By way of correction, my claim is different than what Cailil asserts.  My claim is that the article lacks the NPOV and I offer suggestions to move it towards NPOV.  Kindly read the comment history, thank you.  --Altoids Man 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits to feminism 

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

message: You probably all know that I've been working on the graphics of this project since December but I've just got around to making an invitation template for the project.  I've posted 3 variations here.  As usual there is a purple version and a standard "apricot" version and finally a grey-white version.  Please let me know what you think--Cailil 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  No preference on the colour. There needs to be a comma after the person's name and an 'a' at the beginning of "aimed"; otherwise it's perfect :) --Alynna 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Alynna, I'll fix that up now :)--Cailil  talk 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I need the help of an administrator on an article involving a women's health issue. A male doctor is deleting the info provided by female doctors.  If there is an administrator who can help, please contact me Drzuckerman 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need an administrator. Just restore the information from the article's history, if you believe it to be pertinent, or discuss the situation with the editor in question. Owen 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I need the help of an administrator!!

message: I'm not a part of this project but while looking about for some good models to start a History of women in Australia article, I've really struggled in finding one.  The History of women in the United States article seems to be a good example of the problem as I see it.  It is pretty much a history of feminism and any information outside of that is limited to a feminist analysis of "roles" etc, without much context (historical or philosophical) provided.  The Women's History article which purports to be "a history of female human beings" begins with the section "rights and equality" which an extremely ahistorical (and western-biased) place to start.  Feminism is, after all,  an -ism and as such the weight it appears to be given in articles relating to women and history (which seem to be just the tip of the iceberg) is a serious problem in terms of presenting an npov.  The presence of the feminism infobox in these articles is itself, imo, evidence of bias.  As a feminist myself, I am concerned by this as the conflation of feminism and female simply further marginalises women and reduces this subject area to the femin(ist) sphere.  A history of women (whether general or limited by class/ethnicity/nationality etc) should be balanced by context and adhere to the historical method. Internal wikilinks can easily provide relevant feminist analyses.I just wanted to voice this opinion here (which I hope does not offend) because I believe that it relates to your goals as to what this project is not.  I believe that articles relating to feminism and feminist analyses of all subjects should be have their place in wikipedia but those articles should be titled as such (ie; "Feminist history in the United States") and not be represented as anything broader. And I believe that the Feminism infobox should be used only in articles relating to feminism, not articles related to women.  baby_ifritah 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see from teh goals and whatthis project is not that WP:GS is not about creating articles like the ones you have described.  I believe you are correct to remove the feminism temlate.  I would suggest you also create an alternative specifically for women's histories.  There is one thing that complicates matters though, most books about women's history are feminist writings perhaps a section explaining this in such articles would be useful.--Cailil  talk 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women and History 

message: This project began as front for gender-feminists and their flunkies who are pushing an in-credible ideological point of view on gender-related articles.  This project is still coming from a reverse-sexist point of view but the project goals have been generalized to the point of meaninglessness so that no one can see point of the project now.  This enables the usual 'feminista'-feminist 'subversions' because no one can hold anyone else accountable to meaningless criticia. I will be glad to pull this POV tag as soon as I see reverse-sexist statements in the project deleted, specific non-sexist NPOV goals for the project, and a welcoming attitude from project people for well-sourced content that is 'problematic' to gender-feminist ideologues.  
Many credible feminist authors have shown the falsehood, fraud and misrepresentation related to gender-ginning scholarship by so-called 'gender'-feminists.  Nathanson and Young show blatant reverse-sexist research on gender by feminist scholars in Legalizing Misandry.  They also show how gender as a concept has been hijacked, perverted, and politicized for ideological warfare by feminists in academia and elsewhere.  
To ignore these issues or to insist that only gender-ginning editors are allowed to contribute to the project's content/criteria is to pander to ideological feminist pov.  Gender feminist rapes of reason are no less serious than those Al Gore illustrates in Assault on Reason.
This project needs to aim at a NPOV, reason-able, and plausible take on gender to be a credible project.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.45 (talk • contribs).
:Could you please provide some examples that support your claims?  Perhaps it's because I'm new to the project, but I don't see any systemic "gender-feminist" bias being pushed. Cowpepper 12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Cowpepper's request for examples.  Unless/until some are provided I'll ignore this complaint as the same baseless kind that pops up here periodically. (And always anonymously.  Hmm.)  --Alynna 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everybody knows the above comments from IP 128.111.95.45 were identified as trolling by the long-term vandal Anacapa.  Since making these comments they have been banned.  As noted by Cowpepper & Alynna, the comments are both baseless and time wasting - this user was in fact responsible for all of the periodic trolling comments left on this page since October 2006--Cailil  talk 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think before the spinoff there were some issues (I brought one up here), but I don't see any POV issues any more... I think he's just ranting. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: The Brooklyn Museum of Art has now opened its web pages on the 1979 work, The Dinner Party by artist Judy Chicago. This includes a database of the women featured in the work, in particular the 999 Women of Achievement depicted in the tiled floor.
I have transferred the list of names shown on the floor from the database to the Dinner Party article (although I fear the number does not reconcile with the 999 stated).
This now provides another list of articles of notable women which Wikipedia needs to develop. Needless to say more than half the links are red. Any help in turning these blue is welcome. Lumos3 09:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these links simply need redirect pages.  I've created a few, and will come back to it later. Cowpepper 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brooklyn Museum of Art. 

message: Hi, could someone please check out the Genderfuck article for consideration of this project. Thank you! Benjiboi 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Genderfuck]] article 

message: I encountered the new article Role of women in the Philippines and was curious if it formed part of a series, relating to various countries. It turns out there are some articles like Women in Iraq and Women in India, although there are some differences between focus on roles, social status, legal rights, etc. Is there any effort to make coverage and nomenclature of these articles systematic? Looking above, I also see there are History of women in X articles too. If the contents could be sorted out, it seems like it would be worthwhile and avoid systemic bias if there were articles with similar approach for all countries. Rigadoun  (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women by country articles 

message: Hi. Ruth Kelly is up for peer review here. Your comments are welcome. SP-KP 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review requested 

message: A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: is prodding ("deleting") a lot of articles that are about women's organisations or that are critical of (child) prostitution, women trafficking and rape (National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape, Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee, All Bengal Women's Union, Tulasa, and others). Many of these articles are notable, so I have deprodded them. He has taken revenge on me by reverting all my edits (see this edit on Alice Bailey). Can someone else please keep a watch on future proddings? --Voidocore 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This message area isn't terribly active so you might do better by keeping watch yourself possibly reaching out to other editors on each of those articles and contact an administrator if they actually violate WP. As much work as it may seem each article has to stand on its own merits so if something comes up for AfD then rally more support to quickly address the most pressing issues. Improving articles is the best way to keep them. If the user seems to be disruptively editing then take it to admin for support and advice. Benjiboi 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without prejudice to the notability, or not, of these organizations it does seem that Fl1942 is editting tendentiously.  The reverts, without explanation across a number of articles seem to be retaliatory.  Contact a sysop about this--Cailil  talk 15:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Fl1942 prodding of articles 

message: Hi all, I started Pregnancy on television in my userspace. Originally I wanted to write about how TV deals with actresses who become pregnant (such as the Hunter Tylo case) and how TV either acknowledges or hides the pregnancy in the fictional universe of the show. However, I've also set aside space for reality pregnancy shows like the ones on Discovery Health. I would appreciate community comments before I finish it up and move it to article space. Thanks! Wl219 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV pregnancies 

message: This is not clearly mentioned in this WikiProject's aims and non-aims: Is there any place where I can find gender studies about Wikipedia, both its articles and its contributors? For example, how many users are men/women, how many WikiProjects are headed by men/women, etc. Obviously the board of the Wikimedia Foundation is very strong in women, but does the same balance apply through all levels? If there are any imbalances, could there be any flaws in the design that should be addressed? Etc. I guess these questions fall outside of this WikiProject, but then, where do they fit? Any hints appreciated. I guess it would sort under m:Wikiresearch, but I didn't find anything there. --LA2 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as far as I know there is no systematic research into the gender break-down of wikipedians - I'm not sure that it would be possible to undertake a completely accurate one since not all wikipedians reveal their gender.  To be honest these are not a wikiproject's concern - wikiprojects look after articles.  What you seem to be proposing is independent research the foundation itself may be interested in such a project--Cailil  talk 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender studies about Wikipedia 

message: I just wanted to alert this project to the fact that an article you tagged, portrayal of women in video games as an AFD on it, and if someone here wants to bring it up to acceptable quality they might consider rescuing it.  -- AvatarMN 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayal of women in video games 

message: The first article appears to be a feminist proclamation. There are actual definitions far outside intended diatribe, and I am begininning to feel misandry. For instance when discussing feminists call for an end to patriarchy, their political position probably is from a singular point of view. BobV01 20:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipdia is not a forum and not a soapbox.  Please read WP:TALK to see how to use a talk page properly.--Cailil  talk 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Which article is "the first article" that you're referring to? ➪HiDrNick! 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comments removed by BobV01 have been reinstated.  If you wish to retract a comment strike it by placeing it in between.  It is considered bad form to remove comments that have been quoted or replied to - see WP:TALK--Cailil  talk 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope there is no gender / sex bais here 

message: Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk 

message: The artcle ABBA makes many references to the two female members of the group as "girls". I believe that the article would be improved if all or very nearly all of these references were replaced with a better term. -- 201.19.20.38 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has been completed. Benjiboi 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ABBA]]  could use a review 

message: Has the  template ever been used effectively for an article cleanup? Nothing is using it as this time. / edg ☺ ★ 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know it has had no use yet.  Apparently some sections in ABBA could use it though--Cailil  talk 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently a Template for deletion. I'm leaning Delete since it seems unused. / edg ☺ ★ 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just looking for something like this template. There are gobs of places it could be used! However, I'd like to use one that is more collaborative-sounding and doesn't have an accusatory ring to it. Anyone know of something like a "Gender Inclusion Needed" template/tag?  Thanks --Deebki 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Gender bias}}]] 

message: People may be interested in this debate: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_24#Category:Works_by_women_writers Johnbod 15:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women writers deletion proposal 

message: Hi; the article Pregnancy in science fiction just avoided AFD. There's a germ of a very good article there dealing with the treatment of reproduction in fiction, but at present it's an unsourced list. Help editing would be appreciated, and I'm adding the project tag to the article. --lquilter 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help rescue article 

message: I don't know if there is anybody interested in being involved in this article. It isn't a bad little effort, but it is not my area of expertise, (or interest in fact!) My role has mainly been to try balance the various POV editors who appear to try to massage the article more to their way of thinking, and I am getting tired of the role. In any case I welcome some additional voices who can help improve the article.--Slp1 12:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note Slp1.  I'll have a look and see if I can be of any help--Cailil  talk 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fathers' rights movement]] 

message: Gymnasium (ancient Greece) says: "in ancient Greece only men practiced sports". Sparta says: "a strong emphasis was placed on the physical fitness of men as well as women. Despite their physical fitness, women could not compete in the Olympic Games, according to the Olympic rules (they competed in the Heraea Games instead)." Heraea Games says: "The ancient Heraea Games, dedicated to the goddess Hera (also spelled Heraia) is the first sanctioned (and recorded) women's athletic competition to be held in Olympic Stadium." (etc.) -- We need to reconcile these. -- 201.19.77.39 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest making specific changes on appropriate articles and support with references if possible. If you get any grief ask for help as articles need to be accurate. Benjiboi 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women athletes in ancient Greece 

message: There is a related article Role of women in Judaism whose development should probably be coordinated/merged/sub-main'd with this article.  A topic has been created to discuss this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism#Gender and Judaism.  Best to all, Egfrank 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note Egfrank - will have a look--Cailil  talk 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender and Judaism 

message: Hi! Women in politics is a current WP:ACID candidate. Expansions of the article (it was two sentences long when I found it) are welcome. Punkmorten (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note Punkmorten.  I'll try and help out there if I can--Cailil  talk 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Women in politics]] 

message: In part as a result of the discussion on the Female models CFD, I have begun a project to write articles on women in various professions. The first such article to discuss the topic generally and link to the sub-articles is Occupations, gender roles, and women's history - I drafted this much-needed article and it was promptly tagged original research (6 minutes after posting the item, tagged stub).  I've been adding some of the numerous cites available on the topic.  Please feel free to help out. 
The larger context is that although these are all well-studied topics, some editors in wikipedia feel that categorizing female professionals (or ethnic professionals) as such is overcategorization. Consequently there have been numerous deletion discussions on :Category:Female models, Women in science, :Category:Women writers, and so on.  Some categories (:Category:African American scientists) have been deleted; others have survived.  WP:CATGRS is the general guideline on the topic and it states that an intersectional category is appropriate where an article can be written about that topic. As I suspect most people involved in this project know, the history of women in various occupations  (and the history of gendering of occupations generally) is a significant topic in women's history, gender studies, and women's studies.  Help on this project would be greatly appreciated. 
One problem that we face is that editors with little experience in or knowledge of the field tend to see this interdisciplinary topic as original research, and tend to police it rather heavily (I'm feeling uncharitable at the moment so I'm going to allude to the differences in levels of policing of fictional topics and academic topics especially those pertaining to gender and ethnicity.) So basically any stub has to have (1) a topic sentence that explains it; and (2) an extensive list of references from the start to justify and explain to people that this is a well-studied topic. Anything more, or less, is likely to get slapped with tags, AFDs, and so on. 
--Lquilter (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in the professions 

message: Magazine article that may be of interest; Where Are All The Women:On MoMa's Identity Politics by Jerry Saltz; New York magazine; pages 130-131. And Data: Gender Studies - Is MoMA the worst offender? We tallied how women fare in six other art-world institutions. Benjiboi 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine article that may be of interest 

message: Herland (novel) could use some cleanup. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Herland (novel)]] 

message: I've proposed that Pro-feminism and Pro-feminist men be merged. PF is a stub with no refs and PFM has some good refs. They're both the same thing (basically). Come join the discussion here. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal