Talk:Womyn's land

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mtgoetz1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article
I've edited/contributed to this long-overdue article and have been remiss in not thanking you for creating it. Mille grazie per il suo contributo. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see this article further improved. Who else might be interested in working on it? AnaSoc (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * some missing material:

AnaSoc (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lesbian Land, by Joyce Chency (now out of print)
 * Oregon Lesbian Land manuscript archives overview https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/lesbian-lands
 * Shewolf's Directory of Womyn's Lands (2012 is the sixth edition, and has interviews with some key participants)
 * Anahita, Sine. "Nestled Into Niches: Prefigurative Communities on Lesbian Land." Journal of Homosexuality, 56 (2009):719.
 * Anahita, Sine. "Rivers of Ideas, Participants, and Praxis: The Benefits and Challenges of Confluence in the Landdyke Movement." Research in Political Sociology 13, edited by Lisa K. Waldner, Betty A. Dobratz, and Timothy Buzzell.
 * https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jpmdky/whos-killing-the-womens-land-movement
 * https://www.vogue.com/projects/13532936/pride-2017-lesbians-on-the-land-essay/
 * Seeing no objections to improving the article, I will begin work.AnaSoc (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added content about the Sanctificationists, and added more sources, focusing on academic research instead of newspaper articles. The article still needs more work, so if you are interested, please chime in. There may be too much content about lesbian separatism. Many historical lands did not practice lesbian separatism, and many contemporary lands have heterosexual women as residents. Perhaps the content about lesbian separatism can be streamlined?AnaSoc (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * what about adding a section about novels about womyn's land? There's Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. I can't recall the names of two of the others; perhaps someone else will remember? There's the one where lesbians stole the space station and established a womyn's colony on another planet. Then there is the one about womyn who had discovered a way to conceive children without sperm, but then their utopia was disrupted when a man came. Does anyone remember the names? And perhaps could suggest additional novels about womyn's land?AnaSoc (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally remembered the names of the books, and added them. Also added to the Criticism section, adding Camp Sister Spirit and The Sanctificationists with new citations.AnaSoc (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Propose new section on Purposes or Missions
I suggest that we write a new section describing the purposes or missions of womyn's lands and the womyn's land movement. Kate Ellison wrote about this here https://www.ic.org/wiki/lesbian-intentional-community-yer-around-ya/ We could also link to the Seneca Women's Encampment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Women%27s_Encampment_for_a_Future_of_Peace_and_Justice which Ellison notes was an early womyn's land for a specific purpose. Camp Sister Spirit was also founded for different purposes than just (just!) empowering women, e.g. Lynch, Thomas P. (1995). "Camp Sister Spirit: A retreat under siege". Mediation Quarterly. 13 (2): 151–163. doi:10.1002/crq.3900130208. ISSN 1536-5581.AnaSoc (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the lands espouse ecofeminism, while others work towards food security for residents and communities, e.g. CSAs. Seneca Women's Encampment worked for peace and nuclear disarmament. Camp Sister Spirit has been transformed into a folk school. Bold Moon is now a wilderness preserve. Might be cool to discuss the different principles and missions of some of the lands, which would allow us to include lesbian separatism as one of many principles of the womyn's land movement.
 * Also a section about the womyn's land movement itself, not just the concept of womyn's land. AnaSoc (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Citing sources
A reminder when adding new references: Per WP:CITE: "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method." Also, if you cite more content from an existing cited source (for example: Separatism and Women's Community by Dana R. Shugar / ref name="Shugar1", "Shugar2", "Shugar3", "Shugar4"), reference the new material with the same book citation style and ref name. Wikipedia made adding citations easier to do by including automatically formatted Templates in the editing toolbar: Cite > Templates > cite web | cite news | cite book | cite journal. Choose the template you need and add info into fields. Click "Show/hide extra fields" for additional fields (e.g. Archive URL / Archive date). Pyxis Solitary talk 09:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes, talk. When I tried to use the automatic template on this article, it put first names in the place of last names, and last names in the place of first names. This is the only article where I have had this trouble. Can you point me to a page where I can learn how to do the citations the way you suggested? Thanks.AnaSoc (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What you experienced is odd, because I've never had that happen. I'm going to test "Cite > Templates > cite web" on this page with a faux source. Here it is:
 * ^ That's the format I always get. (I tailor real citations by moving "date=" ahead of "accessdate=".) Could it be your browser? I switch between Opera and Firefox. Try experimenting on your Sandbox. Let me know if it continues to happen to you. Pyxis Solitary  talk 08:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, talk. I use Chrome. Not sure what the problem is, but today I just went in and fixed citations manually. At least I hope I got them right, e.g. to match previous citations. Thanks for your work, and for helping out with the citations.AnaSoc (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting your templates from? Access date is not added, for example, as "access-date=2018-06-10" ... it's "10 June 2016". And why are you still using numbers for ref names, such as ? The point of naming ref names with something associated with the source (author last name, partial name of publication, etc.) is that it makes them easier to find in the source screen. Wikipedia strives to be accessible to all editors, including those with visual disorders. An editor with dyscalculia may find numeral ref names difficult. You'd be doing a good service to this and other articles if you followed Wikipedia's guideline about using one existing citation method throughout. Re Chrome: I stopped using it when I discovered that it downloads updates and other files without your permission. And you can't erase Chrome from your system by just uninstalling it because it's sneaky ... you have to manually find and delete every leftover folder and file associated with Chrome.  Pyxis Solitary  talk 09:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do want to conform! Point me to a page that describes the step-by-step process. I thought I did it right this time :( Sorry to disappoint. Help me out and point me to detailed instructions, please.AnaSoc (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Make sure that you have the editing toolbar selected in your preferences: Preferences > Editing > Show edit toolbar Follow instructions in the RefTools video. The rules for refnames is here. As the above-referenced Wikipedia guideline states, articles should use one citation method throughout. You can always just copy an exiting citation as an example, use its format to create a new citation, and then add the new one to the article. Pyxis Solitary  talk 06:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks so much!AnaSoc (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 👍 Pyxis Solitary  talk 06:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 👍 Pyxis Solitary  talk 06:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

add to WikiProject Sociology
AnaSoc (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The banner is added to the shell at the top. Pyxis Solitary  12:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing the article's established reference/citation style
No editor can suddenly change how sources are cited in an article. (a) Per WP:CIT: "Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way...editors should not...change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus"; (b) WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change....When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and tags". On 9 March 2019, User:Woodsy lesfem added content, for the first time, with parenthetical referencing, using Template:Sfn -- which was contrary to the existing inline citation style that was used in the article. Even WP:PAREN > Consistency states: "If you choose to use this style...it should be used for all citations in the article, not merely a selected subset....you should not use inline footnotes (using tags) for reliable sources that are websites, and parenthetical citations for those reliable sources that are books." It wasn't until today that I took a closer look at the citations in source screen. I did so after seeing the redundancy of the same citation ("[80]") that was added 3x to the introductory sentence in Fiction. There's more to editing Wikipedia than having good intentions; you also need to follow policies and guidelines ... and there are many. When it comes to citing sources, the guidelines are unambiguous. Pyxis Solitary  yak  11:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't utilize the talk page/get consensus before I switched them, but I'll switch them back if it's really disagreeable. The point was to be able to reference the key sources without severely bloating the reference section. Some of the sources I've switched to sfn probably won't be used that often so that's a mistake on my part. I just figured citing, for example, Shugar or Keridwen for ideas expressed over the course of their books would create an unwieldy reference section, in terms of a full citation for each time I use another page from the book. WP:IBID describes what I was trying to do--even if I didn't go about it the right way, I still think there's merit in using sfns. WP:SFN, two sections down on that page, helps me understand it a little, but I still am unclear on how sfns and long footnotes coexist. I've seen a lot of articles set up like Winston Churchill, where sfns and long citations are together in the notes section. This was what I was trying to do by converting the heavily referenced sources (or sources I hope to reference heavily as I expand the article--I understand this puts the cart before the horse though) to sfns. I understand it's a little late now, but I'd like to discuss it further before switching everything back if it can be useful Woodsy lesfem (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You may consider the use of parenthetical references as less "bloating", but many non-academic and scientific readers may find them obtrusive and interruptive. Whatever an individual editor's idea may be regarding their preferred referencing style, in Wikipedia the referencing style within an article must be consistent with the already-prevailing style. You discovered this article 10 months after it was created, made 3 edits within the same month, then returned 13 months later (almost 2 years after article was established), rearranged content, and started editing the article using parenthetical references. In regards to citing "Shugar or Keridwen for ideas expressed over the course of their books", there's also the risk of citation overkill. So instead of the bloating you think may occur, you instead create citation clutter; and as in the case of the no."80" reference for "Luis 2018" that was repeated 3x (side by side), you also create senselessness in the article. I've observed that you are an intelligent editor and I do not doubt that you mean well, but when it comes to using parenthetical references, sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pyxis Solitary  yak  05:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEVAR guideline is clear: "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it...." The citation style that existed before you began to edit the article -- cite web, cite book, cite journal  -- did not hinder the understanding of the article's text and sources used for content verification.
 * I volunteer to bring it back to the original citation style. It's a simple find and replace operation after all. But first, I have a suggestion:
 * Can we please use rp:


 * instead of repeating the full footnotes literally dozens of times:


 * Cheers – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources used more than once are supposed to use refnames. For book sources with more than one referenced page, using "|ref name=XYZ" along with "|pages=1, 2" is sufficient. Using individual  etc. can confuse less experienced editors and create clutter. I stick to the templates, which are provided in the editing toolbar under Cite > Templates > cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal. Adding an extra layer to how it's done is not the goal of WP:CITEVAR, which is to have a uniform citation style for all editors to follow. The only time citations deviate from the uniformity is when newer editors dive in without bothering to review how sources are cited, and when  students are assigned articles without their teachers instructing them on how to edit Wikipedia. (Thankfully, Wikipedia has also moved away from using Harvard style citations, since W is not an academic project.)  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 18:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

New source
In the current year's first issue of Women's History Review (Lesbian Nation issue) several articles are open access. Among these is "‘A meeting of different tribes’? Travelling women and mobility between European and Australasian women’s lands",  by Rebecca Jennings. There's new info in this article on 'Amazon Acres' in Australia, 'Kvindelandet' in Denmark and 'Cefn Foellat' in Wales. Jennings also writes about the many women travelling to visit these and other womyn's lands, almost leading a nomadic lifestyle. (I always thought the Van Dykes were kind of unique in their itinerancy. Well, they were not.)

One of the sources of this article is the very readable "Sisterhood and Squatting in the 1970s: Feminism, Housing and Urban Change in Hackney", (2017) by Christine Wall, about the dozens of (lesbian) women squats in the London borough of Hackney in the 70s. SanderO (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)