Talk:Ratchet feminism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 2 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ImaniCT, Nyanis, Chlo.enoch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2021
I would like to strongly request that the page NOT be redirected to womanism and that edits be allowed. Ratchet feminism has been written about by numerous Black feminist scholars. To tie it to womanism is highly problematic since ratchet feminism is a critique of the respectability politics in Black feminism and womanism. The respectability politics and erasure of certain Black women's voices is also problematic. ---Mkibona Mkibona (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ to request a protection level change please see WP:RFPP. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You should've been engaging in discussion about this before I had to protect the redirect rather than just edit-war over it. You'll need to establish a consensus that the topic is notable enough to merit a standalone article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. The first time I canceled the re-direct was after making significant changes and addressing the issues Wikipedia editors raised. We addressed the complaints, which included copy editing, changing the tone of the article, and adding citations to more scholarly sources in the references as well as linking to the scholars who have been at the forefront of this emerging theory. I have no idea why the page was redirected again without addressing the significant edits that were made. So, I again canceled the re-direct, but I included an explanation as to why I was doing so. I did not realize that I needed to communicate directly with the person who re-directed the page. At this point, I am at a loss. I have reached out to the user that keeps (incorrectly) re-directing the article and I have yet to get a response. I am really frustrated at this point. Mkibona (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest going through the WP:AFC draft process. If the article is accepted via AFC, the target can be unprotected. Alternatively, you could add a "Ratchet feminism" section to  Womanism (or you could do both in parallel, and if the standalone article is accepted, the "Ratchet feminism" section of "Womanism" can include a link back to that article). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please note that Mkibona has been stealth canvassing on Twitter, as seen on the thread here. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I will create the article via the draft process as recommended. I will do it myself. The young women from this group were particularly upset. This topic really resonates with Black women who are Gen Z, and they took some of the reactions hard. So I will create the new article, honoring some of the initial research they did on the history and origins of the term. We really thought that we made the edits to improve the tone of the writing, prove the topic's notability, and included enough scholarly sources. I am at a loss and a bit frustrated by trying to prove the topic's importance. I have solicited contributions and input from scholar/activist networks via social media and academic listservs in hope of getting assistance. I have two questions: Can I create a new draft that will allow others to contribute to the article? Can we please stop re-directing the topic to womanism? The term has its own identity, like Black feminism and Hip-hop feminism. Thanks! Mkibona (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Soliciting contributions to the deletion and redirect discussions constitutes canvassing, which is covered here. A draft through the AfC process will let others edit it before it is reviewed. --Kbabej (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mkibona I'm happy to remove the redirect to Womanism by deleting the target (which is fine, given that Womanism doesn't even mention Ratchet feminism at this time). Looking at the last version of the article, it looks like you still have some original research issues to overcomes.  The article focuses a lot on the word "ratchet" (for which we have Ratchet_(slang)), but I didn't see any reliable sources that used the phrase "ratchet feminism." Did I miss one? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar gave me 25 results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&q="ratchet+feminism"&oq="ratc wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  10:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The request for assistance was not "campaigning" or "votestacking". There was never a question that the term is notable. Only those not familiar with the term would question its notability. I solicited help because I needed assistance and advice in editing the article.

Whether it was the intention of the editors or not, I felt silenced and powerless to do anything about it. I know that some of this is because I was not familiar with the proper protocols regarding communication. Meanwhile, the very relevant, and ironically appropriate, topic was being incorrectly re-directed and my voice was not being heard because I was not following the proper protocols. I understand the need for quality control, and I am very familiar with the revise & resubmit process. But there were elements in this whole situation that felt different.

I was ultimately able to get assistance from other scholars in finding additional sources and proofreading some of the content. The article has well over a dozen scholarly sources and no original research. I didn't even cite myself. If the editors feel I need to add more scholars, that I relied too much on certain types of scholars, that the sources are not reliable, or that the text does not comply with the standards set by Wikipedia, I'm at a loss. If it is still unacceptable, I would request that I be allowed to delete the entire article, since I'm not sure if have any power to do that or not. Thanks Mkibona (talk)

Full protection?
Could you please reconsider your protection of this article? I can see that in the RFPP request it was claimed to be repeatedly redirected by multiple editors and repeatedly restored by the course's instructor, but what I see in the history is that it was redirected twice by (who requested protection) and once by. So we have a dispute between just three editors about whether this page should exist. Per WP:BLAR that should be discussed here or at AfD. Full protection strikes me as very over-the-top. Even EC protection, which you said you would apply at RFPP, would only have the effect of barring one party to the dispute from editing the article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think given the disgusting behaviour described here, it would be safer for our editors if full protection is maintained -- TNT (talk • she/they) 07:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no evidence that any of the people engaged in the Twitter harassment are registered editors here, and there has been no on-wiki disruption stemming from it. According to the protection policy, protection and especially full protection is to be used to prevent actual, specific disruption that can't be addressed through less drastic measures. If any of the Twitter trolls do start editing problematically, we can block them. I do not think protecting this page is making anyone safer, it is just preventing the good faith editors who wrote it from improving it further. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the article and will be disengaging myself from further discussion regarding this topic. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

doi, ISSN, etc.?
Hey, @Mkibona, ideally we'd make the further reading section and references all clickable. I'm having a hard time finding some of them. If we have a doi, ISSN, ISBN, or something, we can often find them.

Also, I'm not sure about including the blogs in further reading. For someone who has an article, like Cooper, we can maybe say, yeah, this is a notable person on their personal blog. But for someone who doesn't have an article, it's trickier. Do you think it's possible Boylorn is notable enough? Ditto a dissertation -- unless the writer has since had the diss published, or has herself become notable, we normally wouldn't include something like that. —valereee (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Valereee. Thanks for bringing this up. I need to edit the "further reading" section. I initially wanted to show a history of scholarship on the topic, but I need to clean it up. For example, there is an error regarding the Crunk Feminist Collection. There is a blog created by Black feminists called the Crunk Feminist COLLECTIVE. It is a space where Hip Hop feminists post entries relevant to Hip Hop feminism, including ratchet feminism. There is also a book called the Crunk Feminist COLLECTION, which is a collection of previous essays from the blog. I will list both the blog and the book and include some other seminal texts on the topic, while editing out some of the lesser cited texts. I'll also make sure to include links and other reference information. Mkibona (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , great! I've moved the Further Reading section to after the references, per our MOS. Ping me if I can be of any help! —valereee (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black Women and Popular Culture
— Assignment last updated by LxkxL (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)