Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Archive 3


 * Archives: Jan 2008 - Dec 2008

Fat feminism & Amazon feminism
partial cross post from Talk:feminism Fat feminism and Amazon feminism are full of original research and Amazon feminism might have plagiarism issues. If anyone can help with these articles please do. I am thoroughly uncertain of Amazon and Fat feminism's notability - at the moment they almost look like hoax articles due to the serious amount of OR on those pages. I'm going to give them 3 weeks to improve - if they can't be sourced and rationalized by then we'll have to send them to AfD-- Cailil  talk 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Wikiproject?
This WikiProject seems to express gender neutral aims. However, its "to do" list seems to betray bias. Why do most if not all of the articles to "expand" deal with women or women's issues, and most if not all of the articles to "review" deal with men or men's issues? Put another way, is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors? Is the anti-feminist position welcome here? Would an editor having an opinion that most Wikipedia articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, with women possibly being overrepresented as editors, be welcome in this WikiProject? Thanks for any response. Blackworm (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm the "to do list" is added to by contributors. Any one can add to list.  Please be aware of WP:AGF and WP:SOAP.  This is a project for editors who want to work on and develop pages within category gender studies and the related areas, that is all-- Cailil   talk 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence of either an AGF or SOAP violation, and I take the accusations as unprovoked personal attacks [-BW]. If someone could please directly answer my questions without making personal attacks, [-BW] I would appreciate it. Blackworm (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [ Accusation of violation of WP:NPA withdrawn ([see also]). Blackworm (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ]
 * I concur that your remark could be viewed as flame bait, and that Cailil's response is appropriate and definitely not a personal attack. Perhaps you did not intend to be infammatory, but you may need to express yourself with greater civility if you want your concerns to be addressed.  Now, if we can get on to the substance of your question, can anybody here explain the apparent bias in the to do list?  It sounds like the structure of the list is creating an "us" versus "them" appearance.  While unintentional, this may be unhelpful.  Would it make sense to merge the two parts of the list? Jehochman  Talk 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written by whoever shows up to do the work. Editors who want to write on feminist topics can do so, and some of them may choose to add their ideas to the Todo list here on this WikiProject, since it seems relevant to their interests. When User:Blackworm argues that articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, he must be asserting that some articles are not neutral. It would be better to hear about a specific article that needs attention, rather than discussing if the Todo list is unbalanced. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm a man and I my work in gender studies has mostly been about masculinities - I wish there was a greater interest on wikipedia in improving masculinities related pages. I think Jehochman's suggestion to merge the lists into a single to do is an excellent idea. This project has not been about us and them and the list should reflect that-- Cailil  talk 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict.) EdJohnston, please reread my comments above, and note that I did not make the argument you claim. I would appreciate it if you would strike out ( example ) your assertion that I made that argument.  Since this WikiProject begins with the declarations, without evidence, that "males are over-represented on Wikipedia" and that there is "systematic gender bias on Wikipedia" (which I read as a broad, sweeping assumption of bad faith directed at males, the word "systematic" implying a conspiracy, plan, or procedure), I believe it appropriate to question whether gender neutrality or support of feminism is the focus of the project.  Whether females are over-represented in articles on gender issues seems relevant due to the logical argument made by this project's declaration.  If indeed females are over-represented in articles on gender issues, would you believe that is evidence of " systemic systematic [-BW] gender bias" in these articles, following the logic of this project's declaration regarding Wikipedia in general?  Also, must the gender breakdown of editors in this WikiProject be balanced to avoid "systematic gender bias," or does that argument only apply to Wikipedia in general? Blackworm (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, could you please point out which specific phrases I wrote which you believe were incivil, so that I may re-examine them and consider apologizing? Thank you.  Blackworm (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My quote from you was that articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view. Unless my vision is failing, that is what you actually said above. What would you like me to strike out? EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a misquote, since it lacks the hypothetical context. What I said was, Would an editor having an opinion that most Wikipedia articles on gender issues are edited predominantly from a feminist point of view, with women possibly being overrepresented as editors, be welcome in this WikiProject?  I did not state that I held that opinion, nor was any argument made as to the truth of that opinion.  You asserted that I argued that position.  That assertion is false, and I would like you to please strike out those comments.  Thank you.  Blackworm (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be most productive if we focus on thinking about which articles need improvement and in what ways. This thread is straying from the main purpose of this talk page, and perhaps some of these comments need to be moved to personal talk pages. I'm not saying that anyone's concerns are unimportant, just that this talk page is for discussing the projecting not "who said what" futurebird (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The question was asked and answered - the "to do list" is added to by contributors. Any one can add to list. If you have business with this project and wish to assist in building encyclopedic articles then your assistance is absolutely welcome. Benjiboi 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my questions weren't clear. Please allow me to rephrase:


 * This Project asserts, without evidence, that "males are over-represented on Wikipedia" and seems to argue that this imbalance creates, or contributes to, "systematic gender bias on Wikipedia." It states as its raison d'être the goal of eliminating this apparently one-directional bias.
 * In that context, does this Project welcome editors who believe that that assertion and/or that argument is completely without merit, or must this assertion (males overrepresented) and reasoning (systematic bias in favour of males) be accepted as true by all editors contributing to this project?
 * In that context and using the same reasoning, would a gender imbalance among editors in this project create "systematic gender bias" in the articles primarily edited by the members of this Project?
 * Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, some of this is just a matter of fact. Males are over-represented in biographies, for example take a look at this: Let's do a survey right now. Pick a random date such as ...January 21 count the number of men and women mentioned on the page. Of the 86 people listed as being born on Jan. 21, 14 are women, that's about 16 percent. I used births since the deaths listed have even fewer women. Now you try. Pick ANY date you like, the result will be similar. Is that normal? futurebird (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And, Blackworm, unless you're a woman I'm the only woman in this conversation judging by the usernames... And I'm not even that active in this project. In general, most wiki editors are men. Not that I think it's impossible for us to have a fair 'pedia with the imbalance... but, I just don't know what you're talking about when you say: "would a gender imbalance among editors in this project create "systematic gender bias" in the articles primarily edited by the members of this Project" ? futurebird (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the question you asked Blackworm was quite clear and I am not alone in considering it a violation of AGF. You are assuming women are over represented here.  Whereas in fact in this thread, so far, only 1 woman has responded (as stated by futurebird above).  You are assuming that women are over-represented in the project - 2 of the 4 founders were definitely male (User:Owen aka Sarge Baldy and Seth Mahoney) also  I am one of the most active users here and I am male.
 * If one goes through the list of participants 12 users are identified as being female either in comments or on their user pages. 12 users have unidentified genders - as is their right on WP.  You have to assume bad faith to assume female over-representation here.  You would also have to ignore me, and other users like Benjiboi who although aren't members regularly comment here.  I will ask again, please assume good faith.


 * Also to clarify, this project exists to correct "any" gender imbalance. That is imbalance against men, women or a homophobic position - hence the use of any.  If users were prepared we could change it to "all".  I would also have no problem removing the line: "Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up."  if the project came to a consensus on its removal.  And as Benjiboi stated you are more than welcome to join-- Cailil   talk 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict.] Futurebird, in a nutshell, this Project's page seems to be saying that an imbalance in male versus female editors in Wikipedia automatically creates a "systematic gender bias" in Wikipedia. My question asks whether an imbalance of editors involved with a Project, or involved with editing a given article, would similarly automatically create a "systematic gender bias" within that Project/article.  I hope this clarifies things.
 * Cailil, as far as I know, you are the only editor openly accusing me of bad faith. I am not assuming female overrepresentation here.  I am asking if the same logic used to conclude "systematic gender bias" in favour of males in Wikipedia, based on an assumption (without evidence) that "males are over-represented in Wikipedia," can be used to conclude "systematic gender bias" in any articles shown to be predominantly edited by females.  My point in suggesting this is that the logic used to draw the conclusion about Wikipedia ("systemic gender bias") appears as a sweeping assumption of bad faith on the part of male editors in Wikipedia, especially through the use of the word " systemic systematic," [was confused, see later edit -BW] which implies an organized conspiracy, plan, or procedure.  Your accusation that I am claiming bad faith (which I strongly deny) by making the parallel argument this Project's page makes, narrowing the context to articles, and reversing the genders, is an ironic twist; it seems to reinforce my point that such assumptions and incorrectly drawn conclusions have no place in Wikipedia.
 * Now I read that you (Cailil) have suggested we remove the assumption leading to the implied conclusion ("systematic gender bias" in favour of men). I believe this would remove the implied "in favour of men" in the conclusion, and address the problem I raise.  I support that edit.  I also support a merge of the "to do" list, suggested by Jehochman and supported by yourself.  Thank you.  Blackworm (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that I believe the words "systemic" and word "systematic" should also be removed.[again, was confused, see later edit -BW] Bias is just that, bias -- but calling it "systematic" is like calling it intentional, which definitely violates WP:AGF on a grand scale, and possibly WP:NPOV as well.  Blackworm (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Systematic does not equal intentional it equals "embedded in the system" whether intentional or not; just like systematic racism and homophobia. Gender studies looks at the current conditions as well as the roots of those conditions including the development of languages, cultures and laws. I hope your able to see that worldwide their still exists gender imbalance and a need for projects such as this to help counter some of those problems. Benjiboi 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the definitions of "systematic" is: 3 a: methodical in procedure or plan .[]  I strongly disagree with your apparent claim that this WikiProject is needed to help counter worldwide gender imbalances.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy group.  This WikiProject, in my opinion, should perhaps restrict its aims to correcting any deviation from the neutral point of view (a) in articles related to gender issues, and/or (b) in any article written from a sexist (or genderist, if that's a word) point of view.  It should not begin by claiming widespread "systematic gender bias" without evidence, with the apparent subtext that this bias favours men universally in Wikipedia.  Blackworm (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The term systemic bias is based on CSB. This project has connections with that one.  Systemic bias does not imply conspiracy it means and I paraphrase 'cultural predisposition' or 'bias due to the conditions of a culture/system.'  Benjiboi is correct, the term belongs here-- Cailil   talk 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems fair enough. Can I suggest we change instances of "systematic" to "systemic," since as you say, the latter does not seem to imply conspiracy?  Also, given that you apparently believe the claims of the WikiProject CSB, namely that systemic bias is a normal, unavoidable result of skewed demographic makeup of a group of editors, do you withdraw your accusation of bad faith on my part?  The accusation seemed based on my suggesting seeming to suggest [-BW] that the demographics of a specific group of editors may result in "systemic bias" in the articles they prominently edit, which is the precise argument made by CSB.  Blackworm (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, I seem to not be alone in my impression of "systematic" versus "systemic." From systemic bias:
 * Some users of the phrase try to draw a distinction between systemic and systematic corresponding to that between unplanned and planned, or to that between arising from the characteristics of a system and from an individual flaw. In a less formal sense, systemic biases are sometimes said to arise from the nature of the interworkings of the system, whereas systematic biases stem from a concerted effort to favor certain outcomes. Consider the difference between affirmative action (systematic) compared to racism and caste (systemic).
 * Thank you for the link, it was an interesting read despite being poorly sourced. Blackworm (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) After waiting 24 hours for a response here, I edited the project page to conform to what I thought might be a consensus, with the edit summary, "I don't understand the sudden silence in Talk, I'll interpret this at present as a possible consensus. If not, plz revert & discuss in Talk, addressing my last post addressed to you if applicable."

This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that "males are over-represented on Wikipedia" is a "reasonable estimate." I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified [here]. I would appreciate if Edgarde or another editor could address this apparent contradiction or provide sources to back up the claim of a "reasonable estimate." Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackwood, the reason that I personally have not replied before to this thread is that your opening remark looks like flamebait, and your subsequent contributions have not reduced my suspicions. I like to assume good faith, and although I'm finding it difficult here, I'll try.


 * In this edit, you removed the text "Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up." I think that the disclaimer is overstated: the German user survey shows "Gender: 88 % male; 10 % female; " (see the piechart). I would prefer to have a survey of editors on the English wikipedia (it has been in the pipeline somewhere for ags, but was stalled) ... but until then, a survey of wikipedia editors is much more relevant than your link to an estimate of the gender mix of internet users as a whole, which in any case related only to the United States.
 * That report estimates 188 million Americans online, but Special:Statistics shows only 6,125,778 registered user accounts on the English wikipedia. Even I was the only non-American, the other 6,125,777 editors would be a mere 3% of American internet users, so there is obviously some self-selection going on, and I see no reason to assume that such selection is gender-neutral when we have evidence of a severe gender bias in another part of wikipedia.
 * I suggest that the sentence should be reworded as "A survey of editors of the German-language wikipedia showed a male to-female ratio of over 8:1, and although there has not been a proper survey of the English-language wikipedia, there is no evidence to suggest that women are better-represented here." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict.) To be clear, I'm not claiming the source I provided proves anything; it is merely food for thought, used to help justify and validate in your eyes my questioning of the yet-unproven claim I support removing, a questioning which has been roundly criticized here to the point of accusations of bad faith. (Isn't a goal of this Project to question apparent bias?)  However, the link you provide certainly does not verify that Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia (WP:GS).  The statement seems to me like original research, or at best, inappropriate interpretation of a source; as does much of your post above.  As I said, my objection is on WP:V grounds.  I am asking that someone verify the assertions this Project page makes using reliable sources, or remove the assertions.  I fundamentally don't understand the degree of resistance I'm encountering here; wouldn't the Project's aims be better stated without first injecting a general suspicion of one-directional bias, Wikipedia-wide, favouring males?
 * Incidentally, and tangentially, I don't understand why one would bring up "self-selection" in the context of a massive survey of Internet users, but not in a tiny, apparently unpublished in a reliable source, apparently non-scientific self-selected survey of German Wikipedia users. Also, where is the verifiable evidence of a severe gender bias in another part of wikipedia?  Note, again, that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Blackworm (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, may I draw your attention to this comment by Pixiequix at Talk:Female genital cutting:"Phyesalis asked me to review the continuing exchange here, as a neutral third party, and I can see why they were getting frustrated. Blackworm, in my opinion you're not coming from a firmly steadfast position. You might've been at first, but as the exchange has continued it looks like you've been subtly shifting your weight to remain at odds with what's being said. As though you're not interested in reaching a compromise, just being 'against' what Phyesalis is saying."Now, I'm afraid you are doing the same thing here. You wrote above "This edit was partially reverted 13 minutes later by User:Edgarde, with an explanation here, stating that 'males are over-represented on Wikipedia' is a 'reasonable estimate.' I dispute this on WP:V grounds. I further claim there is possible evidence of the contrary, as verified [here]."Yet now you say "I'm not claiming the source I provided proves anything".
 * You asked for evidence, and were offered it, but now you say that my use of that evidence is "original research". This is the same problem that arose on discussions you started elsewhere: you ask for evidence, and when offered it you dismiss it with generalities and a demonstably false calim of "original research" &mdash; if you follow the links above, you will find the German research on a University website: see University of Würzburg survey, 2005, with links to http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/ao/research/wikipedia.php?lang=en  and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Soziologie/Erhebungen#Vorschl.C3.A4ge_f.C3.BCr_neue_Erhebungen.2C_Fragestellungen
 * Blackworm, I don't know whether you are trolling or whether you simply don't notice how you shift your ground to try to keep an argument going. But as per the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, this appears to be part of a pattern of editing by you which is widely perceived as tendentious. I cannot know your intentions, but your modus operandi is the same as that of a troll. Please desist, and take heed of the warnings you at WP:AN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please address my arguments, answer my original questions (in the rephrased form above, there are two, simple, "yes" or "no" questions that no one has touched so far), or otherwise argue my points. My position boils down to: "Please cite a reliable source making the claim that Observation suggests an overrepresentation of males on Wikipedia."  The German source is not reliable, nor does it even make that claim.  If you disagree, quote the source.  Any interpretation of this source made by Wikipedians is similarly not reliable.  Read WP:V.
 * As for bringing up pixiequix's comments, you are doing exactly what pixiequix did -- commenting on the editor rather than on the dispute. Blackworm (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret making this partial reversion instead of reverting it fully. My main concern here was that since a Project page is how a WikiProject represents itself, it seems entirely inappropriate for an editor disputing a WikiProject to edit that Project's page to that editor's liking. Project pages should probably be modified by outsiders only for imminently serious problems, such as WP:COPYVIO or lawsuit-worthy WP:BLP issues. (And even these can usually wait a few hours.)


 * I am not a member of this WikiProject, and I should not have intervened by accepting part of Blackworm's edit and rejecting another part. I will be laying off this dispute now. All involved have my apologies. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I deny the accusation that I am inappropriately disrupting this Project with this discussion. I apologize if editing the Project page was inappropriate.  As I have alluded to elsewhere, my motivation stems from a desire to join a WikiProject which has as its aims to counter apparent gender bias in all its forms, with my actions having a focus on countering examples of WP:NPOV violations.  Reading, on this Project page, the (IMO) bias-injecting statements that "observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia," and the implication that this caused or contributed to "systematic gender bias" in favour of males throughout Wikipedia, caused me to question whether this Project is for me; the manifestation of this questioning was my starting this discussion section. Blackworm (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that consensus here is against changing the project overview?-- Cailil  talk 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, yes, that would be fair. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. In that case, could someone please point me to a WikiProject, if it exists, that has as its goal to counter all gender bias in Wikipedia, with no a priori stated or implied opinion that any gender bias on Wikipedia only ever favours males?  Thank you.  Blackworm (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal proposal
There has been talk of forming a feminism portal over on Talk:Feminism. Amidst this talk, it has been suggested that the project be located within the Gender studies project. There seem to be a number of ways to handle this. I've suggested creating Portal:Feminism within the Portal:Gender studies (mirroring Portal:Human rights as the sub-portal of Portal:Law). But first it seems there needs to be a GS portal. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to help much on either topic, so I'd welcome any effort to create either or both.
 * However, to be honest, I'd prefer to start with a Portal:Women, to provide an entry point to all the material on women. For example, I have recently completed List of women in Dáil Éireann and have half-finished a list of women in Seanad Éireann, and am working on improving individual articles. Checking around the relevant categories, it is difficult to find an overview of wikipedia's coverage of women, and I'm sure that Irish politics is not the only area where women have been historically under-represented but where many of he most notable figures would not have been hesitant to call themselves feminists. For example, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who was only the second woman to hold cabinet minister's post in the Irish Government (after a 60-year gap), does not describe herself as a feminist … and it seems to me that a broader approach would allow the inclusion the many pioneering women in all sorts of fields who didn't wear a feminist label.
 * Obviously, feminism could be covered in a wider Portal:Women, but I'm not sure how it would fit in with a Portal:Gender studies. Hope I haven't muddied the waters by throwing in an another idea! &mdash;BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all! There's no clear movement on this idea. I think this is a good time to get ideas out and discuss them. Actually, the women portal sounds like a good idea. I like the fact that it allows a broader focus on women who do not identify as feminists. Phyesalis (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, The women portal sounds like a good idea. Would we use it as the Feminism portal? How about a Gender Studies portal? Or would we use the women portal for it too? --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Feminism would fit both - but Portal:Women has a number of other positive points - many of them mentioned by BrownHairedGirl. After thinking about it I think each of the 3 portals would actually bring a reader to a different place.  Portal:Gender studies would link to LGBT concepts, men's studies and feminist theory.  Portal:Women would bring the reader to articles on notable women who may not be feminists (or feminist theorists as would be the case with portal:gender studies).  At this point I think I'd be in favour of doing all three (which contradicts my points at Talk:feminism) since each one would be valuable and different, in that case Portal:Feminism would be a sub-portal of both Portal:Women and Portal:Gender studies.  This would mean an awful lot of work though-- Cailil   talk 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I totally agree with you, Cailil. I would be in favor of doing all 3 as well. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, too. So who wants to start with what? Phyesalis (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which do you want to do, Phyesalis? I could do the women portal or the feminism portal. --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Gender studies
I've created a portal for Gender studies and Grrrlriot created Portal:Feminism - anyone care to contribute, check it out, and/or offer suggestions or criticisms? Thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The portals are new, so they are under construction. Hope to have more information up soon. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on Portal:Men's rights. The major issue there is lack of pictures at the commons-- Cailil   talk 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Portal:Men's rights is looking good, Cailil. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Subcategory/Task Force of Feminism
I noticed that Wikiproject Philosophy has different subprojects/task forces, such as [this]. I was wondering if WP:GS is planning on doing the same in the future or if someone would have to make a page(s) for the different subproject(s)? If so, I would like feminism to be a subproject of this wikiproject or feminism could be a task force of this wikiproject. Does this sound like a good idea? I want more opinions. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ack - been a little busy - I think bringing feminism in as a sub-portal is great idea. Be bold! (While I go off and be old.) ;) --Phyesalis (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean a subcategory, right? (A subcategory means a [task force]. Would it be of interest? Would anybody actually participate? Would it be active? Those are the questions I would like answered. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my typo. I'd participate. --Phyesalis (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you would, Phyesalis. ;) Anybody else up for this? I think others should be informed of this topic. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol - ok, that was kind of silly. I say, "build it and they will come" - put it together and then post awards for participation over at the Transhumanist's award center! --Phyesalis (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying to go ahead and build it anyway? If so, I will soon and it should be a subproject of WP:GS, right? --Grrrlriot (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) If you're thinking of a task force you could open-up a sub-page of this project or of Portal:feminism. That would seem logical place to put it to me. And yeah I'd be interested in working on it. I would caution one thing though - you've both seen how some users react to this project, unfortunately I have seen the same objections raised again and again on WP in realation to issues that some people don't like. There is and has been a deliberate measure taken by this project (which was original created as WikiProject Feminism) to be neutral and to be seen to be neutral. A feminism (only) task force will unfortunately attract as much and more objections as this project has done. Before you embark on this ask a) could this be covered by this project's talk page or b) by the "Things to do" section of the portal. Once again this idea has my broad support but you need to go into this with your eyes open (and maybe even expecting to have your heart broken by objectors)-- Cailil  talk 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by opening up a sub-page of this project or on the feminism portal. I remember the discussion about WikiProject Feminism. I think the wikiproject was a good idea in some ways, but there weren't enough people interested in participating. I agree, The feminism task force would attract objections. Those are some good ideas. I think it needs to be discussed and that we do need to keep our eyes open. I really appreciate the advice. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks, Cailil, and here we were with our picnic baskets on our way to Grandma's house - you mean there's a big bad wolf in the woods ;)? As always, you provide well-reasoned advice, but this time, I'd say that outside objections to a task-force are just sound and fury. To assume anything other than a desire to neutrally expand and improve feminism articles is a failure to assume good faith. Besides, WP policy is like the U.S. constitution - it's designed to mitigate factionalism (POV pushing). Now, like the US, any given project/article/taskforce may fall short of lofty goals in the short term (say, like an administration - *cough*), but the long term always sees an appropriate correction.
 * With that said, I think your idea about starting with the to-do list at the portal is a great first step - good way to cut our teeth and see what we might want to emphasize with a taskforce. --Phyesalis (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A to-do list on Portal:Feminism is a good idea and a good first step. On the to-do list, Should we make the suggestion of a task force or see what all we want to accomplish with a feminism task force? I suppose the to-do list could set our goals for what we want to accomplish. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm for it as a task force or a project or whatever. In general I like task forces to avoid proliferation of projects but if anything is going to proliferate it could be this one. I have a bunch of articles on African American women and on women in the professions that need to be written & could be part of women's history sections. If we got this going sooner we could highlight African American women for Black History Month (US) and we can certainly hit Women's History Month (US) in March. --Lquilter (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds great, Lquilter. :) I need to think things through with what Cailil said above. --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force is now up. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Feminism
I'm responding to the notice board about the Feminism article. I agree, It is mainly composed of stubs. I think the stubs could be new articles that could be created. As for changing the article to "feminisms", I think there should be a new article about "feminisms", since many different kinds are discussed on the feminism article. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting issue. The feminism/feminisms idea/debate is still ongoing within feminism - but I wouldn't really be in favour of a new article about "feminisms" since that is what Feminism is actually covering - however an article about the debate whether the movement should be described as "feminism" or "feminisms" would be interesting.
 * Addressing the stub issue, actually the page is written as a WP:SUMMARY because there are so many articles about different parts and forms of feminism. When I made that noticeboard posting (which should have been dated as January 2007) the article was in a totally different state and I undertook a rewrite in May-August 07, with the help of everyone there the page is in that the position it is now.  I really should have diffed and dated that noticeboard posting!
 * As regards new articles, personally I think the category is a mess there is massive duplication in History of feminism and there are major issues with many of the stubs (ie Chicana feminism). I would say that before we create anything new we need to do a spring clean.  See what can be (and what needs to be) merged and what expanded.  That said there are at least two budding sub-articles within the Feminism page - Feminism and science and Feminism and culture when we expand the sections in Feminism a bit further these article should be created.  What do you think?-- Cailil   talk 13:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A debate about calling the page "feminism" or "feminisms" would be interesting, I agree. I didn't know how old that notice board posting was. Feminism and science sounds like a good idea. Feminism and culture could be about the many feminisms around the world and I would be interested in creating the article. However, I need sources/references. If you could list some references or sources for me to use for the article, I would gladly create the article. I have been working in my sandbox and I was wondering if this is a good idea or not about feminism? --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As regards your sandbox, I think it would be a good resource for this project. The only problems I see are that a number of "Feminism in..." articles already exist which wont expand beyond a stub and may actually already be original research (becuase sources are being used incorrectly).  In general I'm not a fan of regional articles unless there is a specific notability about something in France (or where ever else).  This is because I'm a mergist and I believe in making one, large, good article and only breaking it up into smaller articles when its components are long enough and well enough sourced to be decent articles on their own.  When I see a a 3 line stub that can't be increased becuase there are no more sources I get annoyed.
 * This was the state of the Feminism in Norway article prior to my merging of it to Feminism. It was basically unsourced opinion. Part of its problem was the way it was written; the other part was the depth of the research that it demonstrated (ie referenced).  If we are going to highlight the gaps in Wikipedia we also need to set a higher standard becuase articles like Feminism in Poland and feminism in Norway are just not good enough.
 * With all this in mind it might be a good idea to do a test in a user-space about Feminism in Albania for example and see if a good article can be written about it or if it would be better as a stub about Feminism in the Balkans for instance-- Cailil  talk 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think that it would be a good resource for the project. I think others would be interested in what feminism is like all over the world. That's true, That a lot of the "Feminism in..." articles exist and won't expand beyond a stub. I suppose I could use my sandbox for a test to make a "Feminism in..." article and see where that leads me. It will lead me to a stub or to a good article. If it is only a stub, I think that the Feminism article that tells about feminism all over the world is a good idea, but I think a Feminism and culture article might be good to put all the country ("Feminism in...") stubs. What do you think? --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good way to look at it. Personally I would imagine an article about Feminism and culture being more about feminist art, literature and cinema; the History of Feminism article might be the best place to merge the regional feminisms stubs into - since they really are histories of feminism in Greece, Australia, Panama, etc.  That article needs to be rewritten, it needs to have a clear purpose and this idea might be a way forward-- Cailil   talk 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right, An article about feminism and culture would be more like art, literature, cinema, etc. I am currently looking at the History of Feminism article and someone has tagged it saying that the article is too long. I like how the article looks, but it needs more references and it is too long. I think some of the sections in the article could be created into new articles such as: Feminism and fiction or they could be re-worded and some sections could collide together. As for the regional stub feminisms, Yes, They could go on the History of Feminism article. I suppose that article does need to be re-written. --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Award center
Hey, I've posted award requests over at User:The Transhumanist/Award Center for improvements to Portal:Gender studies and for new articles on non-Christian feminist theologians, particularly Riffat Hassan. I'm thinking this might be a good idea for a project task - post a few reward offers regularly, help attract new blood, promote collaboration and article improvement. Thoughts? --Phyesalis (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. :) I am still thinking of making the feminism task force, but should it be part of the portal or a subproject of this wikiproject? --Grrrlriot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Related question: Should the "feminism-task-force=yes" line be included in the Gender Studies project banner? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Too late! I've already taken the bold step of adding it. I hope it's not a problem. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Scartol. It's a good idea and thanks for doing that! --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gender-bait
Hi. I've added Gender-bait to this project's listing (tagged the talkpage). There are some questions about the appropriate/best term or title for this behavior, that I've asked at the talkpage. I'd welcome any feedback, information, or insight. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Gender Roles in Afghanistan
I wanted to let you know that this article seems to be written from a Conservative Islamist perspective, and that something should be done. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Restarting to do list
The to do list has been restarted. Everything on there was over a year old and as stated above gave an impression of polarization. Inline with WP:TODO this page is now using todo properly. Old posts to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies/to do have been archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Archive_4]. I'm removing the 'To Do List' link from the Nav Box as editors will see it here and be able to review/edit it from this page-- Cailil  talk 00:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Black feminism
Hi! Just advising of the creation of this new category, if any one wants to fill it up or refine it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Cameron (linguist)
I created this article, because when I searched for her on Wikipedia, I got a different person and I was a bit confused. Mainly to avoid confusing people, I created disambiguation pages and a stub. Then I realized that I'm not really so interested in developing that article... Since it seems she has made important contributions to gender studies, I was hoping that maybe someone here would be interested in adopting her bio. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Joan Jacobs Brumberg
I made her an article yesterday just because she was a red link on Fasting girls. I'd not heard of her before. I just mentioned a bit, then I had to go out, but I think there's loads to be written about this person and her work. It's not just girls- she's written about boys too. So I hope one of you will feel like chipping in on the article.:) Merkin's mum 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with bizarre list article
Can someone from the project take a look at List of genders? I don't know much about gender studies but it still strikes me as very very weird to consider aunt, dad or dude as genders. Clearly the list is in dire need of context because most people understand the term "gender" as meaning either male or female. But even taking the more general gender-studies meaning, the list is puzzling. Perhaps the list can be renamed as list of sexual identities or something like that, though it's still unclear why monk (!), brother or girlfriend should appear in the list. If this can't be put in proper context, I'll submit the article to AfD in a few days. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have speedy-deleted it as nonsense. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * he he... I guess that solves the problem. Pichpich (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

article of interest
This declaration may be of interest to the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Masculine DAB
I'd appreciate some input from memebers of this Project on the masculine disambiguation page, part of which was recently changed from "Masculinity [is] a traditionally male gender role" to "Masculine normally refers to positive qualities associated with men". I feel fairly sure that it's often used in a negative or neutral manner, particularly but by no means exclusively when referring to masculine women. However, I don't really have much experience with the gender studies literature, so I'd be very appreciative of anyone who could come and confirm or deny my belief and point out some references. Thanks! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This project shuns those who don't share the appropriate POV, and yet I completely agree that this change is ridiculous. I don't think what "sources" have to say about masculinity is nearly as relevant as a bold, disputed claim about what masculinity is.  Let's face it -- we all know what it is.  It's what properties we attribute to it that are debated.  Blackworm (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, I've been asked at Talk:masculine for a reference saying that the word's not always used with positive connotations, and providing one seems like the best way to achieve consensus. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Olaf, I've left a note at Talk:masculine-- Cailil  talk 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

References and dictionary definitions have no place on disambig pages. I'm part of that project, too. WP:DAB -- I've cleaned up the page, and left a warning. -Yamara ✉  22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Left a comment, actually. -22:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Our consensus on Talk:Feminine being dismissed by the poster, and despite his characteristically prolonged defenses, he still hasn't repaired the imprecise, misleading, and definitively POV word "positive". Judging as impartially as I can from his talk page histories, (rather than from his assertions), he likely won't concede until we spend exhaustive amounts of time refuting a petit insistence, and until he decides that he alone is convinced of its merit. He also, judging from his histories, considers himself the expert on Gender, and so these qualities of discussion are very likely to be encountered by this WikiProject again. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cailil, I notice you take up WP:AN/I issues. I encourage you to look into this poster's contributions, and help us decide if his talk-page pedantry is calling into question his otherwise quality scholarship. Thanks, Yamara ✉  04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally, general thoughts on how to proceed with Feminine and Masculine would be helpful, too. :) Yamara ✉  04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From experience with Alastair I would say that this matter is not "calling into question his otherwise quality scholarship". This is a content dispute and normal dispute resolution should be attempted - ie RfC or mediation - as far as I can see there is no behavioural issue.  I'd also ask that you reread your above post in light of AGF Yamara; I disagree with Alastair as much as you do but that doesn't give one the right to speculate on his motives.  I would suggest an RfC with a very concise statement by Alastair explaining why "positive" is included in both DAB definitions and a very short statement to the contrary.  I think there is a significant amount of talking past one another (including by myself) on that page so I think outside perspectives are needed-- Cailil   talk 10:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cailil. I hope I intend to AGF at every turn, and was reluctant to post the above, but I believe I was detecting a pattern. I hope I was mistaken. Cheers, Yamara ✉  05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Gender and religion
This article, with the exception of one sentence, lacks information on any religions other than Judaism and Christianity. Can people knowledgable about other religions help expand it? Thanks, --Alynna (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted to WikiProject Religion)

Gender equality is one of this project's central concepts. It was AWOL.
(reposted from Portal_talk:Feminism)

Essentially, variations on Gender equality had been hijacked six or so months ago by redirects to both Zygarchy and Equalism, and had actually begun to affect the conversation across the internet.

This is bad news, as these terms have nothing behind them but ill-defined assertions. I've rarely been embarrassed for Wikipedia, but this is one of those moments where the site's power was left in the hands of POV/OR mischief-makers.

"Zygarchy" is a made-up word that would never meet the WP:NEO standard if anyone had caught it. It has never meant "rule of two genders" before someone asserted it on Wikipedia. There are a couple hundred blogs out there crowing about the "new word they'd learned" while learning less than zero about notable, verifiable internationally-established gender policy. (Somewhat ominously, "zygarchy" is an obscure but genuine term for an ancient military formation involving two chariots. I think the chariots were used to run infantry over... or to cut them down with a chain between them...)

"Equalism" has been used by notable sources and scholars-- but never consistently. There was some effort to use it to refer to communism in the fifties, anarchism at various points, and some among the Facebook crowd seem to like it better than "feminism"; one news citation in Sweden counts it as a subset of feminism. That is to say, it's a semantic game: There is no "-ism" there, just a desire for one, a moving target without a developed philosophy behind it. I've redirected it to a far more notable article, Egalitarianism.

Nearly every instance of a wikilink to Gender equality had been piped to Equalism. That's what last night was all about for me: finding and removing the plumbing from this phantasm.

I've reestablished the Gender equality article with cites to the UN and an external link to the World Bank. I've added it to the various gender studies and feminism templates. This is one of this project's central concepts, and we really have to watch these pages. Cheers, Yamara ✉  21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages that may no longer be of use
Since the creation of the feminism task force I've been looking at the project's use of WikiProject_Gender_Studies/translation, WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Collaboration and WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Notice_Board. Or rather our lack of use for them - I think it's time to delete them.

Also I've marked WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias‎ as historical - it was put there until a separate project was established - but nothing ever happened - it may no longer be necessary-- Cailil  talk 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to the Project Aims
This is related to the above but slightly divergent (hence the separate sub-section). I'd like to suggest we consider changing the project's Overview to something like: "This project is for editors with knowledge or an interest in gender studies and who want to help improve articles about the topic. All that's required to join is an understanding of wikipedia's core principles and an interest in improving and collaborating on articles within this project's scope." Any thoughts?-- Cailil  talk 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If nobody has any objections to this I'm proposing to do this by July 1st-- Cailil  talk 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay before I do this I'll just ask again in case anyone disagrees-- Cailil  talk 11:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm making the change - please revert and discuss if anyone has a problem-- Cailil  talk 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender assumptions
One would expect that given this 'statistic' (half-truth, you would find an anti-female opinion. In fact many threads have the opposite, suggesting the assumption that 'males' are pro-male, or anti-female is incorrect.  Evidence in www.wikipedia.com relating to correcting an anti-male bias has resulted in some cases of 'men' or so they say they are defending the anti-male perspective.   The isolation of gender only as a valid logical    parameter is only part of the story.   We should be careful in jumping to conclusions and or using generalized black and white logic to make conclusions.    Criticism of Criticism   This is a classic example of a paradox, and shallow reasoning or flawed logic. (Truth can lie)
 * "Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up."

(my mistake I had thought it was originally posted on a talk page)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Judith Butler reception: Summary style or POV fork?
See Talk:Judith Butler and Talk:Influence of Judith Butler's concepts. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Women in ODNB absent from Wikipedia
I've found that women are statistically less well-represented in Wikipedia than they are in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I've put a list of women prominent in ODNB but lacking a Wikipedia page on my userpage. Dsp13 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Gender and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with several other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 782 articles are assigned to this project, of which 338, or 43.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mireya Moscoso
per the "women in politics" category... I'm going to try and work on it as well, but Mireya Moscoso, about Panama's first female president, could use some serious BLP/NPOV/referencing love. Most of the article is currently taken up with corruption allegations; what else did she do? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing
See newly generated cleanup listing for this project, at WikiProject Gender Studies/Cleanup listing. --Cirt (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kensington Society: first petition for votes for women
"Harriet Taylor Mill ... was a philosopher and women's rights advocate. She was an original member of the Kensington Society that produced the first petition requesting votes for women." -- The Kensington Society sounds like an interesting subject but is currently a redlink. Can anybody start a stub on this? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism
Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

archive?
Is it time to archive this page? The oldest comments are over a year old. Better yet, can we get a bot archiving old discussions (the LGBT project has something like that)? --Alynna (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I found some instructions for setting up auto-archiving, if we want that. --Alynna (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay! Cirt has set up archiving.  Thanks, Cirt.  The last archiving seems to have gone to Archive 1 - is that where it should go? --Alynna (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Transgender
The Transgender portal needs some content added. There's some there now, but not as much as there should be.

(Cross-posted to the LGBT Studies wikiproject.) --Alynna (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Eligible bachelor
Was a requested article. Just thought I'd let you know it's here now in case any of you feel like expanding on it. Sticky <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevant article nominated for featured
Just as a heads up, the article on Margaret Fuller is a candidate for featured article. Feel free to comment here: Featured article candidates/Margaret Fuller. Thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Gender Studies
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Iranian women's movement
This article could stand to have a few more eyes on it. I completely re-did the article. The talk page has comments by disappointed people looking for the history of women's rights in Iran, and this article fell far, far short. It was factually incorrect not only to its past history, but to the current state. There is no Women's rights in Iran article (although there is an LGBT rights in Iran), and the apparent idea behind keeping this article circumcised is that it was about women's achievements made by women, which is more than silly given that in a male-dominated society such as Iran, few women achieve rights simply on their own. That contention is also not backed by the fact it asserted women were liberated from their homes by Ayatollah Khomeini; in fact, women protested the Khomeini government from the outset. Important gains made under the shah were not only neglected, but seemingly non-existent. I heavily sourced the article and re-wrote it. It certainly could use more work; I think an article on Achievements of Iranian women is merited, but this article certainly is not it. Indeed, it should probably be moved to Women's rights in Iran. Could stand some gender equality-minded folks looking at it. -- David  Shankbone  02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Update on The Feminism Portal

 * – Update: Portal:Feminism has recently become a Featured Portal. All of the articles at Portal:Feminism in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections are of Featured Quality Status, and there are some great contributors who have churned out interesting WP:DYKs. Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material!  Keep up the great work getting articles to Good Article and Featured Quality Status ! Cirt (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of image
Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Equal Rights Amendment
I added the tag for this project to this article today. Kinda thought y'all might be interested in it. Hell, I might be interested in it... --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools FAR
nominated French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Male privilege
We're having a discussion involving very divided views on wikipolicy on this page and need input from this project. Thanks, Wrad (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Female wartime crossdressers
I wonder if an administrator with this WikiProject can help us with with what seems to be an impasse regarding the Category:Female wartime crossdressers.. A user who started the category has put up a lengthy explanation for what constitutes eligability for the category, and excludes Joan of Arc from it on the basis of this text that she wrote, despite the fact that Joan fits as far as the title goes. (And as far as the linked sister list of wartime crossdressers is concerned.) I'm not aware of any allowance for categories to be for something other than exactly what the title says they're for, and and am doubly certain that articles which fit oughtn't be excluded. I think that if the category is about passing (gender) and not crossdressing the title must be changed to reflect that. Or that the notice must be removed and Joan and the few others who qualify under the existing title must be permitted as well. I prefer the latter, being less disruptive, but would support the former if consensus leans toward favoring precision. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, don't everybody jump at once. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)