Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:GS

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Archives Archive 1 Jan 2006 Archive 2 Jan - June 2006 Archive 3 Sept - Dec 2006 Archive 4 Jan 2007 - Feb 2007

Project Gender Studies ⇒ Project page ⇒ Talk page ⇒ Notice Board ⇒ To Do List ⇒ Translation ⇒ Assessment ⇒ Peer Review ⇒ Templates ⇒ Collaboration Category:WikiProject Gender Studies

Contents 1 Assessment of Articles Feb 2007 2 Sex and intelligence 3 Purple message boxes 4 Women's writing as an area of study 5 Editing concern 6 Gender bias template 7 Deletion sorting board 8 Working Man Barnstar 9 Gender bias template 10 Aims & Objectives 11 policies and practices around gendered categories

[edit] Assessment of Articles Feb 2007

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)

I'm off to surf the stubbs. futurebird 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex and intelligence

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)

[edit] Purple message boxes

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 {{gender-studies-stub}} is being developed in WP:STUB.--Cailil 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women's writing as an area of study

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)

Good - I"ll be happy to see what your draft. --lquilter 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Come on by! scribblingwoman 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. scribblingwoman 14:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Further update: The discussion continues, and the category is still in danger. scribblingwoman (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing concern

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)

Sounds reasonable. futurebird 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)[1] - 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)

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)

[edit] Gender bias template

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: [2]) 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)

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)

As a trans advocate, I'd prefer a wording other than "both genders". Maybe something along the lines of {{Globalize/USA}}? "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)

Fair point, Alynna. futurebird 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sure, that works. --Alynna 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know which template list I should affix this to?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion sorting board

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)

[edit] Working Man Barnstar

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)

[edit] Gender bias template

A gender bias template, located on {{Gender bias}}, has finally been created!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done I think this is an important template - and one that communicates its issue very concisely.--Cailil 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aims & Objectives

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 Cuntering 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

1. To create and/or improve articles associated with gender studies, gender theories and gender issues (including feminisms, masculinisms, feminists and transgender issues).
2. To maintain a gender neutral language (where appropriate) in line with the neutral point of view policy.
3. To create a thriving WikiProject.
4. To bring every gender studies related article up to featured article status.
5. To ensure that internal organisation of gender studies articles is consistent.
6. To maintain and improve articles within Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

What this Wikiproject is not

1. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.
2. This project does not seek to write general critiques of articles about gender-related topics.
3. This project does not limit itself to European/North American issues.
4. This project is not a space for writing feminist, masculinist or LGBT critiques of society.
5. 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.
6. 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)

Looks good to me. What does #2 under 'not' mean? --Alynna 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] policies and practices around gendered categories

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) comment moved here from WP:DSSG by — coelacan — 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)