Talk:Feminism/Archive 8

message: I think we can progressively move most of this into the subarticle, which I have started to flesh out, and then just summarise here Mgoodyear 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History/origins

message: If there is anyone interested on expanding this article? I consider it part of the reasons feminism developed or is it not?. There are some narrow-minded people who simply can't stand having an article about violence against women and are trying to merge it into a narrow into a domestic violence article, when violence against women doesn't neceserarily have to be exclusively domestic but has very diverse worldwide views. I took classes in college on women studies and the impression this people are leaving is that violence against women is as entrenched as racism. So should we just merge racism into domestic violence also? I also think violence against men should also have an article separate but linked. If you have any suggestions feel free to express it. If I remember well wikipedia is suppose to be an encyclopedia. --F3rn4nd0 BLA BLA BLA 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia shouldn't be making value judgements about what is 'good' or 'bad'. The requirement for inclusion in the article is notable and sourced. Ashmoo 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. I don't think anyone will disagree that the article has to conform to WP:NPOV, provided all the material is sourced. Ashmoo 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence against women?

message: Good job everyone on the Feminism page. It's one of the best on wikipedia. Feminist and independent filmmaker Sarah Jacobson, who died in 2004, has a wikipedia page. Someone has tagged it for deletion. I would appreciate it if any of you feminist editors could review the article and then leave your comments on the proposed deletion page? Thanks --David Straub 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah Jacobson

message: Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque — coelacan talk — 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion 

message: It is probably worhwhile seeing what the rest of the world thinks about this page, for instance see:--Mgoodyear 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that no one believes that it is possible to summarize "the rest of the world" in one olnly perspective. I am very sorry if my opinions seemed "radical", I didn't mean it in that way. I guess we are all taking others' view points with "grains of salt" (if this plural form works in english). And that is probably why we're having problems in communicating the arguments which are, by far, the most important thing here. Reducing the amplitude of the article is not going to solve the problem I am pointing to neither, and eventhought I have been assured that my points were understood and well taken, it doesn't seem to be so, because no one has aswered/confronted them directly. I have been willing to switch the titles ("Histoy" leaves, and in its place I'd put "One perspective of its western history", but I wouldn't want to do so, because am not that fluent in english, so I entered this discussion looking for debating it, showing that there are other histories of feminisms around the world. For instance, in the XIXth century, brazilian (portuguese) princess Isabel, has made feminist public declarations, and that was an important part of the feminist history, for she was a public, political figure, proclaming for feminist causes from the brazilian royal family, then. This is one example. There are many others all over the world, and even before that. So, to make this article less partial it would be interesting to consider that it speaks for one small part of the history of feminism. Including others as accessories is nothing but condescension to the formal exclusion of others' histories. And who would be these "others"? The ones who are not occidental? The ones who did not write the history, or the one over whom hegemony may narrate its perspective as "the one".
Thank you all for your effort in understanding me and for all the answers I've gotten already from you.
Sincerelly,
Mariana Lima. Hannahlima 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that, Hannahlima, I wasn't trying to attack you through my message- the "radical" comment was directed at the author of the article you posted. I understand what you're saying about including the rest of the world too; the only problem is that feminism is historically and generally focused on the Western perspective because that's where most of the theory is constructed and changes made. Basically, Western feminism is the overwhelming preponderance of feminism; that's why this article focuses more on the Western perspective.Robinson0120 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: Why does this section exist in this article? It should not be here, otherwise we would need the history of feminism in every country where feminism has had notable influence. I will wait a few days for commentary, but I really think it should be deleted right away.UberCryxic 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the most frequent criticisms of this article is that it is too much centered on the West! There is reason to urge that more sections like this, and better ones, be created; rather than that they be discouraged or deleted! --Orange Mike 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of feminism in India

message: I've nominated feminism for Good Article review.  IMHO any problems this page has are very small and it is deserving of GA status.--Cailil 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nominee 

message: Should the Feminism Art movement in the mid 20th century be included? for example the 'Dinner Party', and more? And also the gurellia girls.
Please discuss. ( Seong0980 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might go best in the History of Feminism page instead; it seems more like an event(s) than a constituent of feminist theory to me and statistics to me. Robinson0120 22:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feminism obviously influenced and influences art, but there was never a "feminist art" movement as such. I concur with Robinson0120 that it belongs as a thread within articles on the history of feminism, and the history of art. --Orange Mike 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Orange Mike.  This just isn't the proper place for feminist art movements.  However there is a category for Feminist Artists which is in need of work if anyone can add to it.--Cailil 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminism Art movement

message: A general note on external links, before adding please read the policy on ELs.  If your link is 
#about feminism directly
#a link to specific media about feminism
#a site "that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as ... [statistics or] interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."
Then please go ahead and add it!
Links to, or lists of, feminist or anti-feminist organizations and or persons are not acceptable unless in each case of they fulfill the above criteria.  Please pay specific attention to the 3rd note "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article"  All links that fail this test will be removed.  If you feel there is good cogent reason for keeping a link that has been removed please discuss here; please do not just repost it. --Cailil 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed 3 Links for the moment. Concerned Women for America &  men's activism Reasons:Concerned Women for America (CWFA) is a women's biblical organization: We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 27-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. - being a women's organization and being a feminist one are two totally different things.  Men's activism is a Men's activism site and links to 4 subsites.  Neither of these are directly related to the subject of the article.  CWFA was also posted twice.--Cailil 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This section has NO critical content on feminist ideologies, scholarship, and science. People like the following academics (and many many others) have made many wide-ranging and credible criticisms of modern feminist ideologies, gynocentric gender-ginning, falsehood, fraud and other inane ugliness that pervade post-modern feminisms.  This section and much of the rest of the article panders to post-modern feminist POV pushing about feminism.  Where is NPOV balance here?
I notice that every time in the discussion pages someone tries to tackle the totalitarian control that is maintained on this page they are shouted down, ridiculed, slandered or otherwise silenced.  Legitimate critical content belongs here if this article is to be a genuine NPOV take on feminism.  I insist that any editor who takes issue with this POV template addresses the fundamental issues of totalitarian censorship here before removing the template.  This article is no place for feminists to write propaganda by and for feminists.  It is supposed to be a NPOV take on all POV's about feminism...and that includes those from feminist whistleblowers, feminist dissidents, non-feminists, academics, scientists, credible conservatives and yes even genuine 'antifeminists'.  
*Patia and Koerge (Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies)
*Nathanson and Young (Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry)
*Brizendine (The Female Brain) 
*Kantor (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Literature) This may not be 'academic' enough to fit here but it includes academic research on how post-modern feminists use and misuse literature.
          
(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check Academic section

message: After looking over the article at a quick initial glance, I counted 18 citation needed tags. All of these need to be fixed or removed before it can be nominated again. Also before nominating again, be sure to review the GA criteria. --Nehrams2020 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your advice Nehrams2020.  At this moment in time  I agree with you.  One of the major issues for GA criteria is that the artcicle: "is factually accurate and verifiable."  That it (a) "provides references to any and all sources used for its material;" and (b), that "Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are [used]... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." (c) that its "sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;" and (d) "it contains no elements of original research."  Anything that fails this criteria will be tagged, and discussed here.  If consensus cannot be reached on it after a reasonable amount of time it will be RfC'd either in one of the Projects or at WP:RFC.--Cailil 21:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that I agree that the problem isthe subject being contentious.  Feminism should be no more so than any other field of sociology or philosophy - it's more the article content that's the problem.  But you're right, Robinson0120, until this page stabalizes (with the exception of vandalism) it wont pass GA nomination.--Cailil 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: I've requested semi-protection for this page.  Too much time is taken up in undoing the huge amount of blanking and other forms of blatant vandalism.  If this goes through only editors with accounts (more than 4 days old) will be able to edit the article --Cailil 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding recent blatant vandalism 

message: I was looking for "women or feminist self-consciously"...nothing abuout that in 'en' feminism? In italian that is ' autocoscienza femminista', Rhockher,10-3-2007
:The phrasing is not good English (traditore, tradutore). Could you briefly explain what this means in Italian feminism? We may call it something else, or it may be a unique aspect of Italian feminism. --Orange Mike 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  women/feminist self-consciously 

message: As I see it (as a guy) what people mean when they say feminism, isn't really feminism its just a belief in justice, equality and fairness, with no pro women attitude what so ever i.e.  a so called "feminist" isn't asking for a preference of women over men at all! just equality, its like calling martin luther king a "blackist" or even a "racist" when in fact he and those calling themselves feminists are just freedom fighters, justice seekers, people against oppression, democrats... whatever you want to call them they're not feminists. That is a label which is more appropriate for people who actually hold the less common view that women should have exclusive or atleast preferential access to power and that men should be barred from voting or running for office (in the same way as children) due their demonstrated desire for violence, inferior social skills and scientificly proven inability to multitask and manage complex systems such as an economy or government (we're basically just one dimensional homohunters)Esmehwp 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feminism officially means the belief that men and women are equal, although I agree with you in saying that many "feminists" are after superiority. But that's not the point here.
Yoda921 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  feminism is really a misnomer 

message: Why is there not a single mention of the prevalence of radical feminism today, particularly in the U.S. and U.K.?  Even if you don't agree with it, it is still quite a force in politics. 76.179.235.134 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say most of that is covered under "effects of feminism" and "famous feminists." (And radical feminism is not prevalent much of anywhere outside of certain departments of certain university campuses; some would say that is tragic, others wonderful.)--Orange Mike 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa...