Talk:Feminism/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

first sentence ambiguity - equal to who?

Currently: "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women."

Grammatically, it should be clarified that the desired equality is among women and the rest of society, which is men. Feminism is not about giving women equality amongst eachother, or making women equal to the Martians, or making them more equal; it is about producing women = men and men = women.

Better: "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights that are equal for women and men."

(I feel if I change this directly it will get reverted for some reason, so I'll just leave this suggestion here.) --Nanite (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rights that are equal for women and men Not historically, so it's not applicable; also it's not necessarily true for all the movements. Currently it says rights for women which is correct for all time periods, hence why it's used. --92slim (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My point is strictly about the word "equal", that it's an incomplete equation. To paraphrase, "Feminism is about acheiving (women's rights == ________)". Unless you fill in the right hand side of the equation, the sentence doesn't have any meaning.

Edit — don't get me wrong, I don't mean to promote men's rights or whatever -isms are flying around on reddit these days, it's just that I was always taught that feminism was about achieving equality among the sexes to improve humanity as a whole. --Nanite (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the idea of equality for women implies to men, because women and men are the same category of thing (human). Actually from a purely linguistic grammatical point of view adding "to men" is redundant (and is in fact less grammatical). Furthermore the definition as written matches how the sources define the subject. This is the primary and over-riding point. If the reliabel sources don't need to say it - we don't--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A dictionary would be considered a reliable source for the definition of a word, I suppose? --Nanite (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As WP:DICTS says, dictionaries present a few problems as sources (often there's a degree of nuance that they lose.) Beyond that, though, I don't think there's anything unclear about saying "equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women"; its meaning is obvious from the context. And your proposal just seems more clunky to me. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

This article has been vandalized with a pornographic image overlaid on the top of the page. It needs to be fixed. 72.24.217.30 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see what you are talking about and there is nothing in the edit history to say that this ever happened. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I assure you this occurred. Yesterday the article had an obscene image overlaid on its contents. The image linked to the Wikipedia page for the GNAA, indicating that this was likely to have been a direct hacking attack as opposed to a case of simple vandalism. It appears to have since been remedied. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    • No log or diff of this exists. If indeed this happened it had to be a hack--Cailil ^talk 16:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Is that really what feminism is? Doesn't it count for both genders? Isn't it gender equality? Or am i just wrong? Is it purely for females? If so what is the opposite called (as in an ideology that opposes sexism towards men)? I thought feminism was for men too but i might just be wrong. If someone answer i'll be greatfull Simen1337 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Image (a generic symbol for feminism)

What is the 'clenched fist in Venus sign' supposed to be? Has it actually been used anywhere outside of Wikipedia or was it just made up? It strikes me as rather odd, particularly the colour. What sort of organization for the empowerment of women in society would opt for such a stereotypically infantile 'girly' colour?! nagualdesign 00:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Gender-politics model redirects to Theories of victimology article

I came across the term "gender politics" in this article and wasn't familiar with it, so I checked if there was an article. What I found was a redirect of "gender-politics model" to the "Theories of victimization" article. In that article it defines the gender-politics model as "an attempt to schematise abuse of women as attempts by males in general to maintain their position of power over females." I can't check the citation, because it's offline. But that doesn't sound very WP:NPOV to me. And the redirect strikes me as suspicious in general. I won't change it, however, until I confirm with someone who knows more about gender politics than I do that I should look in to it more and fix it or just leave it to the experts. Thanks for any help! -wʃʃʍ- 03:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Flower Power Feminist Movement

There are some potential problems with the few sentences in this article about Flower Power Feminism:

1. I don't know what the boldface words are about. I haven't come across usage like that in other articles, and it doesn't seem to be used anywhere else in this article.
2. I understand the intended meaning of "For the first time a woman's life, sex was about desire, not marriage. A marriage might get to wait a few years to make sure it was about love," but it's not strictly correct to say "For the first time (in) a woman's life. . ." (I think the intended meaning is for the first time in western society) and "A marriage might get to wait. . ." (the marriage itself isn't waiting, but a couple might be waiting to get married) The precision of language and tone of this section is very different from the rest of the article.
3. None of this is sourced in this article. There's a separate article about this movement with citations, but strong assertions- especially generalizations- should be directly sourced in the article in which they are made, right?

I don't feel comfortable changing the section myself, since I'm no expert on the topic. I thought it was worth pointing out, tho. Best! -wʃʃʍ- 04:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that piece was not appropriate for this article. Removed as such. Anyone who wants to restore it needs to source it--Cailil ^talk 15:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

I think feminism is a philosophy/political ideology, not a profession. Designating it as a profession makes it sound as though you need a qualification to believe in the simple notion of equality between the genders, or that those who do the work of disseminating feminism only do it for financial renumeration. 88.109.58.245 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having trouble finding where the article designates feminism as a profession. Could you please point it out? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Unclear request. Article does not claim feminism is a profession... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for men and women 101.182.210.30 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

TOO fact based?

I'm sorry but did I read the To-do template correctly? Did it honestly say that a section is too based on facts? Someone please tell me I read that wrong. If I didn't maybe there should be a discussion about that. --50.153.134.8 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What I think it's saying is that that section reads like a laundry-list of disconnected facts rather than really discussing the general relation of socialism to feminism. I think perhaps it should say "too factoid based"; it lists a bunch of factoids about individual figures without really putting them in an overarching context that says why the reader should care. --Aquillion (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Description of Feminism

Considering this article itself quotes "...feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women," the introductory paragraph should reflect that feminism is not only about making both women' and men's right equal. The first sentence states that all forms of feminism are about equal rights, when, in reality, only a portion of feminism and feminists want equal rights, while other portions want women to have more rights than men and want to see men to suffer in the ways women have suffered throughout history, and then some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.114.206 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I retract my questioning of the intro after reading what you linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.114.206 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Different types of Feminism

I would like to propose a new section, detailing the different types of feminism. Seems very worthwhile, given the fact that feminism obviously consists of many shades, and there are a number of quality articles on Wikipedia already. This seems to be common on Wikipedia in different articles. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Movements and ideologies section is trying to do that but it could be improved--Cailil ^talk 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cailil. I agree this may be the section to improve.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

suffragettes

Emmeline Pankhurst

Was the leader of the suffragette movement. She was born in 1858 ,July 15th and in 1903 she alongside her daughters formed the WOMEN'S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL UNION (WSPU). And in 1918 due to the suffragettes efforts women over thirty were given the right to vote. feminists are the modern day suffragettes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.208.100 (talk • contribs)

Unless they have actually something to say about suffrage, no they are not. Suffrage is the "right to vote" and involves issues about who is included and who gets excluded. Modern feminism's goals are often non-political in nature. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Where do you see this text? I can't find it. Kaldari (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Which text? This is my reply to the anonymous description of feminists as modern suffragettes. And the description of suffrage as "right to vote" comes straight from the article on the subject. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no Feminist sexim section??

from Gloria Steinem to Anita Sarkesian, feminists are notorious for their anti-male, or just generally sexist views and quotes. Why is the page totally void of this fact? is it censorship? VC19 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Would need WP:RS covering it first off. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of feminist literature considers women to be incapable of sexism towards men, as they are an 'oppressed class' and therefore cannot be the oppressors themselves. So regardless of how much they drink from mugs with 'male tears' written on them, or else use the hashtag #killallmen, they are incapable of sexism... right? Well anyway, here are a couple of sources you asked for EvergreenFir:

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-feminist-movement-create-a-sexist-bias-in-society

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/gender-women  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quora is not a reliable source and the Comment Is Free section of The Guardian is an opinion section. Please see WP:RS for information about identifying reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough on those, it seems that by and large the mainstream media are unwilling to go out on a limb on this, so finding reliable sources is going to be pretty hard. I mean there are plenty of sources like this: [1], but they are far from independent.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's the main reason why there's no sexism section. I think WP:TRUTH is a good essay that relates to this. There's plenty of opinion pieces about it, but they tend to be fringe or by non-notable people. Some notable people like Christine Hoff Sommers have written on this, but people like her are also labeled antifeminist (often by feminists, so you get this circular thing going). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If Christine Hoff Sommers has written on this, why is that not a RS for discussing feminst sexism?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think she has, or at least she claims feminism is anti-men. That would be RS material for a criticism section. Looks like she's mentioned in Feminism#Criticism_of_feminism_and_anti-feminism already, but it could be added to a bit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

To Do - Feminism and Socialism

Hi,
re the "too fact based" item on the to do list: WP has a separate article on "Socialist Feminism"
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_feminism ). Perhaps one could incorporate a summary of that,
or at least from there - perhaps something from the lead - or at least link there directly?
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Neoliberalism section - too long for this page

The current neoliberalism section is just too long for this page (see WP:SUMMARY). The content as written could possibly go into Liberal feminism though. This page here is a summary of the subpages in category:feminism it's literally the last place new information should actually go. New information goes into the specific articles and summaries/condensed versions of that new info "filter-up" to this page. Furthermore the Neoliberalism section now dwarfs the civil rights and socialism etc sections in a way that is WP:UNDUE. I'm cutting it back again for the above reasons please respond before re-adding as someone else will just have to remove it again for the same policy reasons. This is clearly a good faith attempt to improve article but everyone needs to understand how WP:SUMMARY & WP:LENGTH effect parent articles like Feminism and where and how new information etc should go within that context--Cailil ^talk 15:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cailil:, I actually added it here to try to condense the section on Neoliberalism and link to the section here as the main. At the time the two sections were almost identical copy/pastes in both articles. As odd as it may be, it seems a better fit here than there.

Not sure it can stand on its own as an article and I'm not sure there is a better place for it. It's a strange fit with Liberal feminism as Neoliberalism is more of an economic thing, and not a social thing. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Since it's talking about Liberal Feminism for most of the text I removed that seems to be what that portion is referring to, and hence my suggestion but I agree about your economics/society point. Another way to do it would be to make an article for Feminism and political movements and expand on the 4 sections in the current section in that new article, but TBH I don't think that's all that necessary. I think the section was just going into too much detail for a parent article like this one--Cailil ^talk

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

• • • EXPLANATION FOR THE CHANGE: This article is written very well, but the section on the Visual Arts does not seem to touch upon the contemporary developments of feminist aesthetics and shall be updated. This is the reason why, at the end of the section on the Visual Arts, I would add this sentence:

A feminist approach to the visual arts has most recently developed through Cyberfeminism and the posthuman turn, giving voice to the ways "contemporary female artists are dealing with gender, social media and the notion of embodiment".

The reference is a peer-reviewed article published by academic publisher Palgrave and distributed under a Creative Commons license.

This is the way the coded section appears, once updated:***

Visual arts

Main article: Feminist art movement

Corresponding with general developments within feminism, and often including such self-organizing tactics as the consciousness-raising group, the movement began in the 1960s and flourished throughout the 1970s. Jeremy Strick, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, described the feminist art movement as "the most influential international movement of any during the postwar period", and Peggy Phelan says that it "brought about the most far-reaching transformations in both artmaking and art writing over the past four decades". Feminist artist Judy Chicago, who created The Dinner Party, a set of vulva-themed ceramic plates in the 1970s, said in 2009 to ARTnews, "There is still an institutional lag and an insistence on a male Eurocentric narrative. We are trying to change the future: to get girls and boys to realize that women's art is not an exception—it's a normal part of art history." A feminist approach to the visual arts has most recently developed through Cyberfeminism and the posthuman turn, giving voice to the ways "contemporary female artists are dealing with gender, social media and the notion of embodiment".

Pressutopia (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Request seems reasonable and the text suggested has not immediately visible problems. Thank you Pressutopia adding content to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Iroquois

Thinking of adding something: http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/iroquoisinfluence.html. Let me know what ya'll think. 67.204.211.172 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear what it is you want to add. TimothyJosephWood 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't like adding things to an already established article. However, if you don't see the merit, it is another resolve I'm willing to undertake. Thanks. 216.223.90.33 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Feminism

This section seems very shallow and does not fairly represent the logical criticisms of the current feminist movement. It implies an anti-feminist must be bigoted in order to hold those views. I don't think I have the capability to articulate a better revision to this section without harming the neutrality of the article, but leaving it as is does hurt this article's neutrality. 0xFFF1 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey 0xFFF1. I moved this section to the bottom. That's usually where new threads on talk pages go (with some exceptions). This would probably work better if you could be specific with what it is that you wanted changed in the article. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(re-ping 0xFFF1, since I messed it up. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As a philosopher what I find most striking is the near complete lack of criticisms based on the merits of the philosophical positions. By the time the reader gets to the third sentence of the first paragraph, they're reading a laundry list of carefully selected issues which seem to be quite purposefully designed to highlight the bigotry OxFFF1 noted. The fact that it does not even mention analytic feminism, much less the point that it has become the dominant avenue of feminism within academia, is particularly surprising, and disappointing. This would be akin to a criticism of a creationism entry that not only listing, say, 'failure to believe in science' but not mention evolution, at all. With all due respect, did you not notice that the last sentence of the entry is in fact a distortion of a critique of feminism, that was morphed into the opposite of what the author stated? That should set off a huge red flag within anyone reading a criticism section of a philosophical approach, regardless if it's feminism, post-modernism, or epiphenomenalism in epistemology. If a reader, after reading any entry, again regardless if it's feminism or utilitarianism, forms the impression that based on the article the position is all but beyond reproach and belief in a contrary position is absurd, more than likely the authors of the entry have failed, quite profoundly. The section should include widely discussed, and often near universally settled, problems with the position, such as objectification (which has been noted as nearly fatally flawed for more than a century now), inconsistencies in addressing entailed responsibilities of rights, a over reliance on identity politics, and oppression as shared experience, (a position so widely considered bankrupt that even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy took the highly unusual step of noting that some scholars believe the suspicion has gone so far as to make it impossible to make even generalizations, and that was over 20 years ago!) A short, but accurate and critical criticism section should exist, as it should for pretty much any philosophical position. As this one stands now, OxFFF1's critique of being shallow and implying bigotry is spot on. Maxxx12345 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated before, this works better if there are specific changes you would like addressed, rather than a general commentary. TimothyJosephWood 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that's what I had done. Include actual merit based criticism. Rewrite the list of positions argued against in the first paragraph. Include oft unaddressed (or denied) entailed responsibilities tied to rights, such as failure to mandate selective service registration when mandating open access to all roles in the military. Note the critiques of shared oppression, which is all but universally included philosophical encyclopedias and authoritative anthologies. (It's lack of inclusion here is a big red flag to those in the field.) A short paragraph beginning with a criticism of narrative and subjective based approaches would be an excellent idea, particularly in demonstrating both its oft noted entailed problems with logical stringency, and as a segue. These criticism are so ubiquitous within the relevant fields that they were instrumental in the massive growth of analytic feminism. With that approach one of the most predominant criticism can be included as well as including analytic feminism, which in no reasonable criticism section could be left out. Hope that helps give a little direction. I'm one of those old people who aren't good at all this internet code stuff. :p Maxxx12345 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 0xFFF1. This article strikes me as one-sided, but more specifically, outdated. There isn't anything about the modern culture war against what many perceive as radical feminism/SJW feminism/feminazism, even though it is a growing view of feminism, regardless of your personal views. Specifically, I suggest adding in the kind of issues covered in the 21st_century section of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism#21st_century

BBC and Time, among others, have covered the 2014 social media trend "Women Against Feminism." These antifeminists contend that feminism demonizes men (misandry) and that women are not oppressed in 21st century Western countries.[4][34][35][36][37][38] The Guardian and Jezebel have also reported on an increasing number of women and female celebrities rejecting feminism and instead subscribing to humanism.[39][40] As a response to a pro-feminism speech by Australian Labor Senator Penny Wong,[41] several women who identify as being humanist and antifeminist argued in an article for the Guardian that feminism is a discriminatory ideology and continues to portray women as victims.[39]

For instance, the perception of modern-day feminists being concerned with trivial or unimportant matters such as 'Manspreading' or 'Mansplaining', being overly offended/sensitive, or looking for oppression where there isn't any, ect., the list of complaints this view has goes on. Whether you're pro-feminist, anti-feminist, just interested in feminism, believe the perception, or don't believe it, this growing perception is undeniably an important thing to cover in the main article on the subject. Here's some online news articles that cover the kinds of things I'm talking about: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-decline-of-feminism/ http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/when_feminists_believed_in_freedom/13946 http://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/ http hubpages com/politics/Why-So-Many-People-Are-Against-Feminism (spam filter blocking the site, just listing it as an example of the beliefs/perceptions I'm talking about) --User908325 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You're going to need some better sources than two blogs, one opinion piece, and one questionable piece. I think folks conflate critiques of feminism with modern day antifeminism. Backlash is not the same as criticism/critique. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should be a bit clearer, by specific I mean:

In the second paragraph of the section titled "Completely true things about France", please change "France is in Asia", to "France is in Europe".

Even better, you could propose a draft of changes you would like done. Then it can be discussed and evaluated by others. TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I can write something up, but I can't do all this coding stuff: I know content, not technology. Plus, I was really hoping a budding young mind would get interested in the project and contribute. Either way, let me know but keep in mind I can barely indent and sign my name on this thing. ;) Maxxx12345 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There are almost 1,000 editors who "watch" this article currently, though they are all almost certainly not active. Nonetheless, there is no shortage of minds, although many, like myself, may be working on other projects here. I would suggest this tutorial for editing Wikipedia, or the Teahouse, where new users can ask questions. Alternatively, you can always ask at my talk page and I'll try to help in any way I can.

Overall, it's better to have understanding and expertise, and lack knowledge of the markup (coding), than visa versa. The markup is comparatively easy to learn, while the understanding may take many years. TimothyJosephWood 00:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hipparchia of Maroneia

One of the earliest women that lived with feminist principles was Hipparchia of Maroneia, wife of Crates of Thebes (member of the Cynic school, she left traditional woman role and live based on her natural impulses, looking for happiness and freedom.

I removed this (and an earlier version) since

1. The reference is woefully inadequate to identify the actual work being referenced (WP:V, WP:RS)
2. The sayso of a single author is not sufficient to recruit a classical Greek philosopher into a 20th century movement. (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE)

I am eagerly awaiting the comments of the contributor in question. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Approximately the same text has been removed from Protofeminism, History of feminism and Public sex. That text includes the line "The Latin-language prose writer Apuleius wrote lurid accounts of them having sex, publicly, in broad daylight.". Said text mentions Hipparchia once but does not include any descriptions of sex, public, lurid or otherwise. I have removed a simular statement from the article on Hipparchia of Maroneia, for exactly the same reason. It is worthwhile to note that the Florida contains only 26 chapters (including five fragments) in one book.^attalus.org Kleuske (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Another book where you can read about her:

Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laërtius;

I wrote about her as part of the history of feminism, not only about her sexuality, if you do not agree with a text you can edit that text, but it is not necessary to delete the whole text.

https://archive.org/stream/livesandopinions00dioguoft/livesandopinions00dioguoft_djvu.txt

• Horn. Od. x. 335. Pope's Version, 387.

t Horn. II. vi. 211. Pope's Version, 254.

Some texts use the name Hipparchus and talk about her as a male, using him instead of her and he instead of she.--P2prules (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So?

1. The fact that she assumed mens clothes does not imply feminism. That is a conclusion drawn (by you) and conflicts with WP:SYNT. FOr the same reason, I can recruit her (post mortem) as a crossdresser or transgender.
2. Moreover, there's not a single mention of sex, public, lurid or otherwise in any of the sources, hence there's a <insert expletive here> good reason to remove such statements.
3. When I ask for a source for a particular statement, I do not want "here's more books you can read", I want a source that supports a statement: this book, that page, author X,Y and Z tells us "she's a feminist" or ":she's having sex inpublic in a lurid narrative".

Quod non, as the Romans said.

Kind regards, Kleuske (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not assumed that she was feminist for the clothes that she used, or her sexuality views. I just wrote some texts that were written in some sources, and those sources are just citations. Relax. --P2prules (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

And I asked you for a source, which you failed to provide. In the meantime I removed obviously false statements from several articles, which were quite specific in their claims on which author allegedly wrote it. I actually checked. He did not write it. Kleuske (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Toxic masculinity

Could use more information regarding toxic masculinity and how that affects women - this is a big part of it, given that so much of the problems between men and women stem from a lack of communication, because they are taught not to communicate their emotions. Cbrewer415 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Source revision?

Many of the sources that I see cited, whether by famous authors or not, seem to be "feeling pieces" subject to WP:OPINION. If someone could find more sources with empirical data, (studies, surveys, etc.) it would be greatly appreciated. The Average Gamer (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Nl3116 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the exact definitions are off, and there are some grammar deficiencies within the text. Also, I think there is not enough content on the differences between 1st & 3rd-world types of feminism, leaving the viewers ignorant of the crucial differences. Not to mention, it seems like the owner of this article is uneducated in general about the topic, which should be revised,

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kosack (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

References

People of color

the feminism movement is about the advancement of women as a whole and there is too much information focused on the white aspect of the movement and the sections about the people of color are too short as are made to seem that they haven't made equal contributions to the movement.Zholly (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Zholly

If you feel that way, find sources mentioning contributions and improve the article. Be bold. Kleuske (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Critique Of Men's Rights and Women's Rights

feb 20, 2017, Well I have noticed when men's rights are have the critique section men's rights is considered misogyny where as the critique section of women rights contains people preventing women's rights instead of stating feminism is misandry, this is not a fair assessment, critique of men's rights too is to prevent men's rights and should not accusing men's rights for misogyny, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources (and there are RS's) feel free to add one. Kleuske (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

bell hooks instead of Bell Hooks

bell hooks is a person and should have capital first letters right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.15.184 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) ok its seems that it is intentional so...nevermind ( de gustibus non disputandum est)--201.226.15.184 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it's intentional. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

She likes to stylistically uncapitalize her name... for some reason. Actually, I just looked at her article and I can't find discussion of this. surely she has said why she does this?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

External Weblinks

http://feministberlin1968ff.de/ Stories, interviews and reflections of the beginning of the feminist movement in Berlin 1968-1974 (in English). Lucida Grande (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Lucida Grande (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lucida Grande: Ummm... That's a book review. I do not find it very suitable for the exlinks section. The book, yes, but not the review. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done — IVORK _Discuss 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

I need to add more towards Feminism, my grandmother wants me to add some things. Thanks. Idkmemez420 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done — no specific edits were requested. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest Data

I've been reviewing the latest data on single mother families and its very disturbing: 85% of incarcerated youths come from single mother families; 71% of high school dropouts (80% of people in prison are high school dropouts); 90% of runaways; 80% of rapists. I think a section called "The Failure of Feminism" is called for at this point. And the situation is going to get worse: currently only 20% of men aged 18 to 30 are married. Feminism is communism, it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory, and communism always fails. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You kind of trailed off into a political rant towards the end there. Why are you equating single mother families with feminism anyway? nagualdesign 14:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If you connect the dots, you'll find correlations between feminism and sociological problems. For instance, the divorce rate shot through the roof in the 1970's and we started getting the kids of divorce in the schools in the 1980's and this is when the "disruptive classroom" became the norm. Previously, the well behaved classroom was the norm. And currently the USA is only ranked 17th in education worldwide (and 75% of all USA teachers K-12 are female, so the women are going to have to take the blame for this one). Not all single mother families produce criminals, of course, mothers who have a job and a university degree seem to raise kids okay. And feminism is certainly political--it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory, which is pure politics. Feminism caused the single mother family syndrome in this country. In fact, all sorts of things have gotten worse for women: Women drink more, smoke more, do drugs more, more traffic tickets, stress, heart attacks, strokes, etc. I'm particularly attuned to this because I have a sister who's a hard core femiNazi--her femiNazi buddies turned on her, which increased her stress enormously--she had a stroke, and now she's half paralyzed ,living in a wheelchair. I've seen first hand the damage feminism does and all the data I've read correlates this. We definitely need a section on the failures of feminism. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. To quote the guidelines, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. In short "connecting the dots", as you have attempted to do here, is what we call "original research". You'll have to find a reliable, published source to back-up your claims if you want to add anything to the article. nagualdesign 17:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

When you mention data, provide external links to other users for verification.

As for the phrase: "If you connect the dots, you'll find correlations between feminism and sociological problems.", may I remind you that correlation does not imply causation? The United States has always had sociological problems, and feminism is in part a response to such problems. High school dropouts in particular are far from a new phenomenon.

I searched for a bit about U.S. High School Graduation Rates, prior to the 1970s. The following list gives the number of students who actually managed to graduate in specific periods. The rest did not make it. The numbers are sobering: http://www.safeandcivilschools.com/research/graduation_rates.php

• Period 1899-1900. 6.4% of the students graduated.
• Period 1909-1910. 8.8% of the students graduated.
• Period 1919-1920. 16.8% of the students graduated.
• Period 1929-1930. 29.0% of the students graduated.
• Period 1939-1940. 50.8% of the students graduated.
• Period 1941-1942. 51.2% of the students graduated.
• Period 1943-1944. 42.3% of the students graduated.
• Period 1945-1946. 47.9% of the students graduated.
• Period 1947-1948. 54.0% of the students graduated.
• Period 1949-1950. 59.0% of the students graduated.
• Period 1951-1952. 58.6% of the students graduated.
• Period 1953-1954. 60.0% of the students graduated.
• Period 1955-1956. 62.3% of the students graduated.
• Period 1957-1958. 64.8% of the students graduated.
• Period 1959-1960. 65.1% of the students graduated.
• Period 1961-1962. 69.5% of the students graduated.
• Period 1963-1964. 76.7% of the students graduated.

The data is from a statistics report published in 1965, so I am not certain whether graduation rates continued to increase through the 1960s. Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 **Your data has to be viewed in context.  For instance, in 1900 only 34 states had compulsory education (through elementary school). In 1918 Mississippi was the last state to require compulsory education through elementary school.  By 1940 only 50% of kids had completed high school.  Many kids opted not to go to high school since it wasn't required. In 1900 94% of kids didn't go to high school.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitions Suggestion

Not a forum for personal views on definitions or gender roles in the workplace
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Limiting feminism to a rights issue is as far as I can see philosophically and sociologically incorrect. See https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=feminism for a starter on many strands. While rights feminism is exceedingly important and also the most visible strand, there are many others, included broadly in a heading of the celebration of womanhood. The importance of this is that it is not limited to a relationship vis-a-vis men as the yardstick (There are many examples in the academic and non-academic press and many notable individuals). This is a controversial topic so I think will need some careful work to handle appropriately. Regards, Parzivalamfortas 19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs) You've raised some good points, few people I know are aware of Feminist Metaphysics, for instance. As far as "rights" go, 90% of the people in prison in the USA are male, women get the kids 96% of the time in a divorce, women have controlled the vote in the USA since 1980, men do 98% of the heavy construction slave labor in the USA and constitute 91% of workplace injuries, men work more overtime, etc. So women actually have more rights in the USA than men. So I think we should concentrate on the various aspects of feminism that deal with other issues, as you suggest, to reach some sort of identity politics for women. Currently it seems people are just whipping a dead horse--60% of US college students are now female and women get more BA's, MA's and PhD's than men. So the tide has turned and old time "rights" feminism has become obsolete. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC) This isn't a forum. Discuss using reliable sources as refereces, and not vague statements that such sources exist. I'll also note that statistics don't define people. I am a man. I work in construction, I'm not a slave, I enjoy my job and I get paid well to work hard. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Your rant makes no sense. All the stats I've quoted are well known. Are you saying that heavy construction labor is easy and fun and that women should do 50% of heavy construction labor? Well then, why aren't they? Since you work in construction perhaps you could explain why women, who want "equality" with men, refuse to work in heavy construction? I think this is an important topic. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

Kindly the add the following...

• Rosemarie Tong (2013). Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-4841-4.

Added. Thank you. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713193304/http://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/pp204_10ep.pdf to http://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/pp204_10ep.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Two Schools of Thought

Can we include the fact in the introduction that diverse schools exist within feminist and then define Individual Feminism vs Radical Feminism. Here is a good source written by Individual Feminist Wendy McElroy https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/feminism-womens-rights Thanks.

The sidebar in the article links to various types of feminism. You can find Individualist feminism and Radical feminism linked there. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002056/http://www.genderforum.org/issues/genderealisations/key-issues-in-postcolonial-feminism-a-western-perspective/ to http://www.genderforum.org/issues/genderealisations/key-issues-in-postcolonial-feminism-a-western-perspective/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs Improvement

This article needs improvement because it's 100% feminist leaning. Sources that are used are heavily biased and pro-feminist. More space and sources should be provided with criticism of the feminism, so we can get a balanced opinions. Feminism is not about equality, because Feminism is not Egalitarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.172.44 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This is partially due to the fact that this article isn't in fact about feminism. Under the Third Wave section it states "In the early 1990s in the USA, third-wave feminism began as a response to perceived failures of the second wave..", but is only partially correct. That period was when the third wave feminism and analytic feminism formally split in formulating approaches to deal with the second wave issues, which at the time was called the postmodern (or post-structuralist)-analytic split; and in fact most scholarly sources, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and many APA publications still use this phrasing.

This article isn't about feminism nearly as much as it's about the developments within the postmodern/post-structuralist branch after that split. The dominant editors, and most of the editors by far, have some groundings and interest relating to this branch only. The APA (American Philosophical Association) has held discussions not only on this issue, but this very article. This is perfectly analogous to a philosophy entry that notes the birth of continental philosophy, and then goes on to only discuss continental philosophy as if that was the totality of the field, with formally educated and professional opinions being labeled "fringe" and "not noteworthy" and "bias" just as has happened here with this issue. (On at least one occasion a highly respected feminist philosopher, with decades of publishing experience, was told she was 'clearly uninformed' on the subject and was threatened to not repeat her edits, to the somewhat comical reaction to several prominent APA members.) It's not meant as an insult, but the bias and lack of formal educational grounding is so stark regarding this article, that the article literally ignores the other major branch (the other being analytic, just as with the field of philosophy itself) without even realizing the scale of its existence.

There's a reason why this entry looks nothing like the one(s) found in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That's not meant to be cruel, but it is very sad. Maxxx12345 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

I wish to fix grammatical errors in the Feminism page. Please Consider :) NightIntheDark (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: If you are planning to change British spelling to American or vice versa, read this first MOS:ENGVAR. If not, and the mistakes are few, list them here all and what should be done, otherwise wait till you become autoconfirmed, page protection cannot be applied or lifted because of one person.  — Ammarpad (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

It explains things from a mostly pro-feminist point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaurinee22 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

Hello, under the picture of Simone Veil at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Mid-twentieth_century there is this text : "Simone Veil (1939–), former French Minister of Health (1974–79). She made easier access to contraceptive pills and legalized abortion (1974–75) – which was her greatest and hardest achievement." She was born in 1927 and died in 2017 so the (1939-) is wrong ; and it could not mean either the date when the picture has been taken because she would have been only 12. TLDR : Change (1939-) to (1927-2017) 2A01:CB15:1F3:9400:C5A0:6027:6593:982F (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Minority viewpoint

Why is it not headlined at the start of the article that feminism is a minority point of view and that only a small percentage of women accept the label? This could give the misleading impression that women as a whole consider feminism representative of their interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.62.216 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that the majority of women don't want social equality? To be honest, it sounds like you're talking out of your rectum. Feminism covers a vast swathe of ideologies, not just whatever minority you have in mind. For example, if you were to ask every woman on Earth, "Do you think girls should receive the same quality of education as boys?" I expect most of them would think you were an idiot for even having to ask. nagualdesign 13:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was an encyclopedia, not some flame war on YouTube, so why are you making comments like "talking out of your rectum" and "would think you're an idiot". Be professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.172.123 (talk • contribs)

The majority of women do not accept the label "feminist". However the majority would indeed agree for actual equal rights as you say. So this highlights how women perceive the difference between equal rights and feminism, that they are not synonymous. This fact is highly relevant to an article on feminism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.172.123 (talk • contribs)

See (for instance) "Poll: Women reject 'feminist' label, call them 'too-extreme,' anti-men", Washington Examiner, "Less Than Half of Millennial Women Identify as “Feminist”".

I agree that "talking out of your rectum" or reducing "feminism" to a few talking points no-one disagrees with is hardly the way to go. Responding in kind isn't either. In order to make a point on Wikipedia, the best thing is to cite sources instead of making claims and then failing to back them up. Kleuske (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism accepted Kleuske. So where are we now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.172.123 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@87.113.172.123: We're discussing the matter, I provided two sources to support your claim (and you could probably find more). The next step is you being WP:BOLD, preferably citing more sources. Kleuske (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Feminism & Misandry

I propose we include in introductory part the following claims: "Some have labeled sections of Feminist movemenet as misandrist (men-hating)." We can use credible source, like Christina Sommers who considers herself "equality feminist." Let's include it to make this article more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.172.44 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL and WP:DUE. Also, please step away from your rage-totem and try studying the subject from its own perspective. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018 (Adding an internet section)

I would like to contribute to the culture section of this page by creating a new section for "The Internet". I have useful information regarding feminism on reddit and multiple citations to support the information, which are listed below. The piece I would like to contribute is below.

Proposed article text for new "internet" section

Internet Reddit is a social media platform typically dominated by caucasian males, (Duggan, Smith, 2013) but feminists have used this platform to create subreddits as a space for feminist discussion about politics, concerns and to support one another. These subreddits are useful in analysing the dynamic between feminist communities and communities that are explicitly hostile towards feminists, as well the dynamic and unequal representation between different feminist ideologies, such as third-wave feminism and post-feminism, specifically on networked publics.(Massanari, 2017) /r/TwoXChromosomes, which was created on July 16, 2009, (/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics, 2018) is one of the most notable feminist subreddits, where the submissions focus around health, rights, sexual assault and equality. (Massanari, 2017) As of January, 2018, /r/TwoXChromosomes had 11.5 million subscribers and ranked the 49th most popular subreddit found of Reddit. (/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics, 2018) Related subreddits linked to /r/TwoXChromosomes include topics surrounding girliness and womanhood, beauty and fashion, careers, hobbies, health and fitness, reproductive health, pregnancy and parenthood, feminism, activism and politics, LGBT discussions, sexual assault and domestic violence, and support for men. There are also subreddits which surround issues and discussions pertaining to specific ethnicities and sexual orientations within the community.(Related Links and Discussions, 2017) /r/TrollXChromosomes, which was originally created as a by-product of /r/TwoXChromosomes as an April Fool’s joke, (Massanari, 2017) was established on March 31, 2011 (/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics, 2018) and creates a more humorous environment for its feminist community where memes, reaction gifs, twitter snapshots and jokes are often shared to create a friendly feminist space. (Massanari, 2017) As of January, 2018, /r/TrollXChromosomes had three hundred thousand subscribers, making it Reddit’s 320th most popular subreddit. (/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics, 2018) As of January, 2018, /r/TrollXChromosomes had 25 subreddits linked within its network, which include spaces for /r/TrollXMoms, /r/TrollXGirlGamers, /r/TrollWeddings, and /r/TrollXPorn. (trollnetwork subreddits, 2018) On reddit, feminists are frequently accused of being “trolls” when they point out misogynist comments. (Bergstrom, 2015) /r/TrollXChromosomes aims to “take back the troll” by transforming it into a positive feminist symbol. The /r/TrollXChromosomes trolls are members of the subreddit, /r/TrollXChromosomes, who share and post feminist friendly content such as memes, gifs, in an anecdotal sense (Massanari 2017). Members of the group refer to themselves and their community as trolls, in an attempt to rebuild the tainted image of the widely-known Internet Troll (Massanari 2017). Trolling in the /r/TrollXChromosomes/ subreddit differs from the usual trolling experience, where the ultimate goal is to belittle or undermine individuals or groups of people. This feminist community offers a space to relate to fellow feminists and creates an overall supportive experience for members (Massanari 2017). The subreddit, /r/TrollXChromosomes, troll is an amusing, unglamorous community which has potential to spread positive messages across the large and widely used platform of reddit (Massanari 2017). (Massanari, 2017) http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2017.1414863 (Duggan, Smith, 2013) http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_reddit_usage_2013.pdf (Bergstrom, 2015) https://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/1026/682 (/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics, 2018) http://redditmetrics.com/r/TwoXChromosomes “/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics”. Reddit metrics. January 27th, 2018. Retrieved January 27th, 2016. (/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics, 2018) http://redditmetrics.com/r/TrollXChromosomes “/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics”. Reddit metrics. January 27th, 2018. Retrieved January 27th, 2016. (Related Links and Discussions, 2017) https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/wiki/related_links_and_discussions “Related Links and Discussions”. Reddit. Retrieved January 27th, 2016. (trollnetwork subreddits, 2018) https://www.reddit.com/user/sodypop/m/trollnetwork/

Tortalyni (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tortalyni: While this is an interesting topic, like anything, it is subject to Wikipedia verifiability standards, which include footnotes from reliable sources in secondary publications. The pewinternet source probably meets that standad, but none of the reddit ones do, and I can't access the uvic url as it's restricted. As a secondary matter, you would have to integrate your sources as inline footnotes, not just a random list at the end of a long section. If you are serious about including this material, search around in books and scholarly journals or reliable websites for material about this, then rewrite your section, and present it again below with your reliable, secondary references properly cited.

Finally, this article appears to be undergoing an attempt to bring it to "featured article" status; among other things, this means that editors will look very critically at any proposed changes to ensure that it does nothing to undermine that effort. This is perhaps not the best time to introduce your Reddit-related topic here. Best, Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S., I added a "hide/show" bar to expand your article text proposal, as a way to set it off, and also to keep this section from getting very long, especially if you make more proposals. In theory, no one has the right to alter your Talk page entry (per WP:TPO), so if you don't find this a helpful addition, please feel free to revert it back to the way you left it. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per Mathglot. feminist (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

x original: Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

CHANGE TO:

y new: Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish and achieve political, economic, personal and social empowerment of women, as part of a proclaimed objective of overall equality of sexes.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men. 86.184.226.113 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 21:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

X Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.

CHANGE TO

y Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a stated common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes. 86.138.223.206 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

So you want to add the word stated into the sentence? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like an improvement to me, but if there's actually a source that says something about why "stated" goals are something important that I'm maybe missing, then sure. Otherwise, the current version seems clear and unambiguous; where is the improvement? IP, what was your reasoning, here? Mathglot (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think it's an improvement. — MRD2014 ^Talk 19:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

Spagootyguy (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
synonym- sexism

 Not done: Not really. — MRD2014 ^Talk 21:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Trans people

The article, so far as I can see, does not mention transgender people even once. This seems like a massive oversight for a page that is 9000 words long and solely about (specific areas within) the topic of gender. I reckon a paragraph or two under "Movements and ideologies", summarising parts of Transfeminism and Feminist views on transgender topics, would be due weight. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit you made in 'Men and Masculinity' - this isn't because I don't think the article should mention trans people, it's just because we need to represent what the sources say fairly rather than putting words into the authors' mouths. I agree with you that the article would benefit from a discussion on the various feminist perspectives on transgender people; would you be in a position to draft something?Girth Summit (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the reference given and I can't see any use of binary language. It's just a few pages about men's role in feminism. But more importantly, we're not quoting a passage here, but writing in the editorial style of Wikipedia, which (though I can't find a policy on this) should be to avoid trans-exclusionary language (such as how Angel Haze's article refers to them with the pronouns "they/them"). If you object to the phrasing "people of any gender", how about the phrasing "The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that men should cooperate with women to achieve the larger goals of feminism" (changes in bold)?

I'll try to draft a couple of paragraphs at some point today. It struck me as very surprising how the lead of Feminist views on transgender topics gave about a 50:50 weighting to pro/anti-trans views (I expected mostly positive, though maybe the article actually is representative), and transfeminism doesn't look like a very good quality article, so it may take a while to write a fair summary. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that it wasn't a direct quote, but with referenced statements we need to stick to the spirit of what the source says. A phrase like 'any gender' has clear (albeit laudable) connotations, and so if the source doesn't use it then I don't think we can either. I'd have no problem with your revised wording; another possibility, which would change the meaning even less, would be "The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that men and women should cooperate to achieve the larger goals of feminism".

I'm personally not surprised that there are 'pro' and 'anti' feminist perspectives on the concept of transgender topics described on the relevant page. There are some well-grounded feminist criticisms of the whole concept, which are well worth discussion, although this page isn't the right forum.Girth Summit (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Have been watching this with interest, and I'd like to chime in at this point. I think that Bilorv's opening comment set the tone, especially the part about summarizing Transfeminism and Feminist views on transgender topics on this issue, which I think is exactly the right approach (except that I'd add, "briefly summarize"). To that end, WP:SS is the summary style guideline. In addition to the two articles you mentioned which might deserve summary treatment on this topic, you could add Radical feminism and Transmisogyny.

To your second point, I don't believe there's anything in Wikipedia about avoiding "trans-exclusionary language" because it's up to sources what they choose to write about and how they say it, we merely report what they say (with due weight, of course). You might be thinking about MOS:IDENTITY, but this concerns language used to refer to how an individual identifies, and not about using Wikipedia's voice to make judgments about what's fair or isn't, for example, if binary language in a source ignores trans people. One could, of course, introduce other sources which don't ignore them in counterbalance, if that was warranted. But really, I think most of the discussion including what to add should take place at one of the other articles, and probably after that's resolved, we should come back here and summarize it. In particular, your "50:50" comment would be appropriate and worth discussing, at the other venue, and I'd probably have something to say about that, but this isn't the best place for it. Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I've boldly added a new section on transgender people (and made the "men and women" change discussed above) in these edits. I welcome any copyedits, or additions, or rebalancing of due weight that anyone thinks is necessary. Further discussion here would also be helpful. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the section looks pretty good - it's not too long and it seems to summarise the key arguments. I don't think that the 'TERF' acronym needs to be included however - to dedicate an entire line to it, in a section of less than five lines describing the whole subject, seems undue. The main article on Feminist views on transgender topics doesn't give it nearly that much weight, although anyone wanting to know what it stood for could go there to find out; I'd suggest you cut that sentence out. Girth Summit (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's fair – I've removed it. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good!Girth Summit (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism?

Why are these combined?

And why is there this intro to the section? "Anti-feminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms."

They are not two mutually inclusive things. One can be critical of an aspect of feminism without being "anti" the whole concept.

And in fact the Oxford dictionary used as source to try to do this is wrong.

The current Oxford dictionary definition of anti-feminism is "A person opposed to feminism. ‘an ardent anti-feminist who campaigned against equal rights’" Oxford Definition

Not "in some form" --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Antifeminism/Criticism of Feminism

The article conflates Criticisms of Feminist theories with Anti-feminism. The stance is not justified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed your {{NPOV}} tag because your reasoning is just an assertion, not really any evidence of a problem. (It also broke some formatting, and you were looking for {{POV section}}, as it's a section rather than an article.) By the definition given by the article, anti-feminism is simply opposition to some or all of feminism... and that's what criticism of feminism is also about. Do you have any reliable sources which clearly demonstrate there's a difference? Or can you expand upon your rationale a bit? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Which means that if a moderate feminist is opposed to some ideas of radical feminism, they are in fact an anti-feminist, right? — Fobemipa (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that we might want to consider WP:BLUE. Equating all criticism of parts of feminism to opposition to feminism itself is clearly illogical, especially considering that it would make all feminists anti-feminists because feminism itself has different schools of thought. For example, all sex-negative feminists would be antifeminists because they oppose sex-positive feminism, and all sex-positive feminists would be antifeminists because they oppose sex-negative feminism.

Also, just because the article currently defines antifeminism as opposition to some or all forms of feminism doesn't mean that's how it should be defined. While a few sociological sources say that antifeminism is opposition to some or all forms of feminism, mainstream dictionaries often just use opposition to feminism.Leugen9001 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

The term and its contents

What I, as probably an average reader of Wikipedia, have not been able to understand from the article is why defining, establishing, and achieving political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes is called feminism. Maybe something should be done about it. – Fobemipa (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Because in its origins it seeks to bring women into something resembling equality with us guys. Protecting the rights of feminae = "feminism". What's hard to understand? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should be something like: defining, establishing, and achieving political, economic, personal, and social equality of women to men. What's hard to understand is why a movement focused on equality of the sexes isn't described by a neutral name, for example sex-focused egalitarianism. – Fobemipa (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Like a lot of things in language: because that's the history of the term. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like sources giving definitions more exact than “equality of sexes” should be found and the alternative definitions should be added to the article for readers to consider, lest this part of the introduction sound like an attempt at manipulation. – Fobemipa (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Because of the historical context. This is a talk page for discussing how to improve the article, not how to artificially modify the English language. The article describes the word and its meaning, as defined by reliable sources. Suggest your own sources if you think they're incorrect. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the article can be improved by introducing quotes from the sources and explaining how the conclusion presented in the introduction was drawn. I suggest that because I've studied the sources and haven't been able to find the explicit statements. Also, if I was trying “to artificially modify the English language”, could you explain what made you think so in order for me not to do that in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fobemipa (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What's hard to understand is why a movement focused on equality of the sexes isn't described by a neutral name, for example sex-focused egalitarianism. This isn't actually a widely used term though, and Wikipedia follows the terms that reliable sources use. "Feminism" is the term that is actually used. While feminism is an ideology, as the article explains in the opening sentences it is also a range of political and social movements, which all used the term "feminism" (except protofeminism). The reason "feminism" came to be used is because of the historical context but due to the continued existence of patriarchy, it is still an apt term to describe movements for equality between all genders and sexes. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. – Fobemipa (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the definition of feminism on the Wiki is too narrow as it does not capture all the major facets of feminism as understood by those who identify with the label. For example there are those who take a more intersectional approach to feminism and understand feminism to not only be the fight for the equality of sexes but of the the genders. Also Feminism broadly differs from egalitarianism and derivative world views as there is a highlighted focus on women and/or females. A definition that captured such large factions would should be, "Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that *share a broad common* goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes *and/or genders with focus on the perceived and actual inequalities faced by woman and/or females.*" This seems more apt at captureing the overall tone and meaning of feminism as it is understood by those who use it and is thus more apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.151.41 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources define feminism as support for gender equality. Wikipedia must follow what reliable sources say because Wikipedia is not a research agency or think tank that is able to generate its own facts. Thus, Wikipedia must define feminism as support for gender equality. If it is illogical to use "feminism" to describe gender equality, then that's the fault of how the word is used by reliable sources and society at large and not Wikipedia's problem. Changing the word used to describe support for gender equality should be done through real life political advocacy and not Wikipedia.Leugen9001 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide one of these "reliable sources"? There are plenty that clearly state that feminism is for womens rights. (Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, Google, dictionary.com, vocabulary.com etc. etc. etc.)NOT mens rights, and not equality. This is also reflected today in society, the feminist movement and feminists across the world - if the very definition of the term isn't enough for you. Walterblue222 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Celebrity and Media

(Under category Culture)

First coined by Jennifer Wicke, a professor from the Powerpuff girls series, the term “celebrity feminism” refers to a modern form of feminism that is created by female celebrities who are eager to publicly claim feminist identities. The past few years have been noted for the recurring trend of active feminism, in which numerous celebrities made feminism more visible through performances, open speeches, and social media. Forums, such as Elle UK, released issues solely discussing feminism and quoted that 2014 was “a year…in which feminism was increasingly visible within popular media cultures, including celebrity cultures”. In their article, Introduction: feminism and contemporary celebrity culture, Hamad and Taylor also emphasize this “snowballing” effect of celebrity culture and that the figure of “self-professed” feminist celebrity became an ongoing flashpoint of cross-media celebrity landscape. The growing number of celebrities publicly identifying themselves as feminists, notably Beyoncé, Emma Watson, and Jennifer Lawrence, has defined major moments within the entertainment industry, creating multiple debates on social media platforms. Young women, contributing as the majority of the audience of mainstream celebrity culture and users of online media, are therefore exposed to such discussion and respond to them in distinct ways. According to journalist Connie Crane, social media, like Facebook and Twitter, are “relatively affordable, ubiquitous, and simple” and therefore allow broader access to feminist debates.

With celebrity feminism and social media conjoining to create this new platform, feminism has expanded to become a widespread interest of the public. Feminist blogs have become a ground for young women of different cultures and contexts to come together and advocate for their equal rights in school and work . Debates over the media representations of celebrities as feminists are therefore ongoing and social media has become the major platform for teenage girls to voice their opinions. In her 2014 MTV Video Music Awards performance, Beyoncé appeared on stage with the word ‘feminist’ illuminated in oversized lettering behind her. The performance received great media attention, some critics referring to such movement as a “celebrity zeitgeist” and of “orchestrated publicity”. Immediately after the performance, feminist blog posts and online discussion boards were updated with debate over whether her performance was truly a “feminist” movement. Some blamed her skin-exposing outfit, commenting that it was “contradicting to what she’s saying”, while some criticized it as a marketing tactic, questioning her understanding of the term . In September 2014, Emma Watson, as UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, was applauded for her speech on gender equality and the launching of a campaign called “HeForShe”. While the public praised her activism, many young feminists opened online discussions, questioning the campaign’s validity. They believed that the campaign’s goal, to inform young boys and ask for gender equality, was flawed and diverted “attention to men”.

There is great debate over “celebritized” feminism, in which young feminists appreciate the growing popularity but criticize the manipulation of fame and misunderstanding of the core beliefs of feminism. As Hamad and Taylor noted, intersections of feminism and contemporary celebrity culture are “myriad, complicated, and contradictory”. While one does not necessarily benefit or harm the other, both use appropriate methods to utilize its medium and communicative differences. The controversy that always follows feminist publicity results in critics and young women recognizing that there is no “authentic feminism that exists beyond its celebrity manifestations”. There is definite increase in attention to feminism in mainstream media, yet young feminists remain skeptical of the media representation. For example, news forums and magazine articles have reportedly announced celebrities’ response to the self identification as a feminist. Figures such as Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, and Lady Gaga were noted to either shun away from the term or ambiguously answer without a determined motive or reason. Celebrity feminism is thus commonly believed as surface level feminism and is said to be turning into a “fashion” and trend in which stars use the publicity to their own career benefits and “articulate political positions” . As awareness of gender equality is increasing, celebrities are voicing their opinions, either due to sincere passion or for publicity and reputation, and explicitly stand in positions that can greatly influence the minds of the audience.

The intersection between feminism and celebrity culture, and its portrayal through media, has thus “shaped the kinds of feminism that come to publicly circulate”. Celebrity news, largely communicated through social media, creates current popular culture and the audience are keen to follow regardless of their personal stance. In her article, Keller discussed the “lack of education that girls and boys receive about feminism”, and how celebrity publicity replaces this gap. Media representations of self-professed feminist celebrities frequently contradict fundamental feminist ideologies, which evidently distort the public’s understanding. Literature examples, such as Piercy’s poem Barbie Doll or Tiptree’s science fiction The Girl Who Was Plugged In, illustrate this misrepresentation and confusion. Both works depict extreme societal expectations on women and appearance, as well as gender embodiment. The idealized female body in which both works portray are “results of celebrity endorsement and consumerism”.These embellished images of female bodies however are still reproduced by celebrities who claim to be feminists, belying their publicized opinions that women have the right to disregard sexual expectations and gender roles. Influences in which society and media have on the perspectives of the young audience are discussed, and this questions the ability of celebrities to “represent the complexities of contemporary feminist issues”. Through social networking and media representations, young women are expanding their knowledge by discussing the rise in celebrity feminism and interpreting the influences in which such publicity tactics can have on their, and the public’s feminist perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarober4 (talk • contribs) 00:52, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

References

There's no "celebrity" (noun) on the page at the moment. Your essay here is a bit odd, this is a talk page to discuss improvements of the article. The current problem in 2019 is a pending "Good Article Review", i.e., somebody suggested that the page is not more good enough.
I'm quite confident that my favourite "riot girl" John Oliver doesn't need an invitation by Emma Watson to detect the 12 years old girl in himself, and I'm sure that "bad feminist" Madonna or "post-modern feminist" Sasha Grey have a clue how to use their influencer and click bait values for whatever purpose they choose: That's as it should be and authentic from my point of view. (References on demand.) –84.46.52.182 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is a newer term in feminist theory, coined by Kimberly Crenshaw in 1989 as "the view that women experience oppression in varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity". Intersectionality is not an original concept of Crenshaw, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarober4 (talk • contribs) 00:52, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

Intersectionality is wikilinked twice (lede + infobox), and your Crenshaw source is used as reference on the target page, so maybe the state here as of February 2019 is okay. –84.46.52.182 (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms

My revision to this article was undone with the excuse of "experienced editor would know to discuss changes to the basic definition of a major article at the Talk page before attempting it in the article." from User:Mathglot.
What qualifies this as a "major" article?
The information I clarified was: "'Feminism' is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights of women on the basis of the equality of sexes.
I believe his is the correct definition of the term, and removing the "of women on the basis of the" seems to be omitting key information regarding the definition of the term.
Oxford English Dictionary defines feminism as "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.", nearly the same terminology I used to clarify the lead section of the article. True equality is egalitarianism, not feminism, and it seems manipulative and deceitful to omit key parts of the definition - why is this permitted to happen?
I suggest the complete definition be restored, does anyone have any suggestion here? Would alternate wording be better? Is Oxford English Dictionary not a reliable source? (Cambridge Dictionary, Google, dictionary.com, vocabulary.com and many other sources also give the same definition.) Please advise, thanks. Walterblue222 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit in question is this one.

We do not base articles on dictionary definitions, but rather we base them on reliable sources. I see nothing "manipulative and deceitful" here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What sources were given that exclude the information included in my edit? Manipulative and deceitful is my opinion, you're correct. However, omitting my opinion still begs the question: why is this key term omitted, and why is it incorrect to add it? Thanks. Walterblue222 (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Walterblue222, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia. As a brand new editor, you'll find there are a lot of policies and guidelines to guide editors in contributing to the encyclopedia. It takes a while to get on board, and even after many years, I still continue to learn how to be a better editor. So, be a little patient, as you come on board with this new environment. Coming here to discuss differences about article content and seek consensus is the right thing to do.

A few things to understand about the Lead (see WP:LEAD):

• The lead summarizes the rest of the article. If you stopped reading before the body of the article, you should still have a decent grasp, in summary form, of what the whole article is about. (Studies show that many readers never read past the lead.) That's a different function than the lead of a newspaper article or essay.
• The first sentence (WP:FIRSTSENTENCE) and lead paragraphs (WP:LEADPARAGRAPH) have special functions.
• Because of the summary function of the Lead, changing the Lead in a mature article cam be a two-part operation: examine the body of the article (changing it first if needed), then change the lead to better summarize the body.

In answer to your question about "major", what I meant by that is several things:

• There are hundreds of articles related to Feminism on Wikipedia. You can see a large subset of them linked from the Infobox top right, by clicking the [show] links. The Feminism article sits at the top of the hierarchy of all of those articles.
• This is also a major article based on its importance in the body of all knowledge. If you look at the top of this talk page, you will see that it is listed as a "Level 3 Vital Article". This means that of all the 5,790,519 articles currently in English Wikipedia, this one ranks among the top thousand in importance. That puts it in a tiny sliver of articles at the very top of the pyramid in importance, making it very major, indeed.
• Finally, it's also major in terms of viewership, gaining many thousands of pageviews per day, on average. That compares quite favorably with the viewership of other articles.

I hope that answers your question about what I meant by "major". Because this is a major article, any changes are likely to get a lot of scrutiny; edits to the lead and first sentence even more so. I'll leave you some other, more general tips about editing Wikipedia at your user talk page. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole procedure of improving the encyclopedia depends heavily on collaborative editing. This means dealing with other editors, and seeking consensus when there are disagreements about article content. See Wikipedia:Editing policy. You got here ten days ago, and have nine edits to articles; I hope that's the start of a long, and productive effort at Wikipedia. Before you got here, the Feminism article had nine thousand edits in eighteen years by over three thousand editors. So, if you land here one day, and find the article not precisely to your liking, regardless of how strong your feelings about it might be, or how right you may be, you still need to talk over your proposed edits with others here and come to an agreement about if, and how, to change the article. Coming in here as a brand new editor and throwing around accusations about deception and manipulation is not the best strategy to gain you support from other editors to see things your way. Be civil, assume good faith, and seek consensus for your point of view. Then, you may end up getting the change you wish to see. Or not; it's a collaborative project, and sometimes the majority of people might not see things your way, in which case, you just go on calmly to the next thing on your list. Meanwhile, it would be good to hear from other editors about your question about the definition. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I have a few questions, if you don't mind: firstly, who ranks the importance of an article? I understand what you said about viewership, is this what determins the vitality of the article or is there a review process? I understand that changes are likely to get a lot of scrutiny, as they should, but I am disturbed that the article's lead/first sentence do not accurately or fully describe the term. I understand the collaborative nature, and am seeking consensus regarding this - what is the next step in doing this? What sources exclude the information that I added? How long must I wait after seeking consensus to submit an edit for a page? Is it based on time, or how many people respond affirming or denying the validity of the edit, or something else altogether?

Why would the lead paragraph omit information that nearly every source I can find includes, and how can this be seen as anything BUT deception?

Consider these analogies, if you will: A film is an illusion of images. A song is a single work with patterns using sound and silence. A table is a surface for working at. Notice anything strange about these statements? While technically they could be seen as accurate, there are vital pieces of information missing. This is how I see the exclusion of vital information from the first sentence regarding "feminism".

A film, also called a movie, motion picture, moving picture, or photoplay, is a series of still images that, when shown on a screen, create the illusion of moving images.

A song is a single (and often standalone) work of music that is typically intended to be sung by the human voice with distinct and fixed pitches and patterns using sound and silence and a variety of forms that often include the repetition of sections.

A table is an item of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, used as a surface for working at, eating from or on which to place things.

Similarly: Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights of women on the basis of the equality of sexes.

I can't imagine why it would be beneficial to exclude "rights of women on the basis of the" from this definition, and while excluding this piece of information does not make the rest of the definition false per-se, I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete.

Thank you for taking the time to explain things, I hope you can understand my position & explanation and I look forward to your responses, as well as learning more about wiki as a whole. Walterblue222 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding article importance, scroll to the top, and click [show] next to "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects," then click any of the WikiProjects in the rows beneath it, for example, Gender Studies. Each project will have an explanation somewhere of a subgroup that does assessments of article quality and importance. On the Gender Studies project, you'll see an "Assessment" link in the lavender box to the right. Click it, to get to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Assessment, which will explain how they do it. With the exception of a tiny core of employees of Wikimedia Foundation that looks over all wikimedia projects, everything at Wikipedia is done by volunteers, so the other projects in the list may do it completely differently. You just have to follow the links, and see how each project does it. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Whew, a lot to read today! Thanks for the reply, but I still have a few questions you didn't answer.

What sources given exclude the information that I added?

How long must I wait after seeking consensus to submit an edit for a page?

Is it based on time, or how many people respond affirming or denying the validity of the edit, or something else altogether?

Why would the lead paragraph omit information that nearly every source I can find includes?

I don't understand why it would be beneficial to exclude "rights of women on the basis of the" from this definition.

My personal opinion is that the definition in the first sentence is misleading and deceitful; setting aside opinion though, it is, at the very least, factually incomplete.

What is the next step in seeking consensus regarding this? Walterblue222 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

First, would normally be a thorough discussion here. The guideline Wikipedia:Consensus will give you details about that, as well as further steps to take. Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but can you please respond to the many questions I asked that you haven't acknowledged or answered? Thanks. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We've both had a lot to say already. Part of consensus is getting feedback from a variety of editors, especially those not directly involved in a content dispute, who might lend their opinion without having a stake either way. Let's see what others have to say. Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting to "see what others have to say".... meanwhile, people reading the lead sentence are presented with an incomplete definition. Does anyone have any logical reason to exclude the segment "rights of women on the basis of the" from the definition? Walterblue222 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, still waiting, Mathglot... do YOU have any logical reason to exclude the segment "rights of women on the basis of the" from the definition? No-one else has provided any, and the definition should be complete. If anyone has any valid, logical reason to exclude part of the definition from the lead sentence of the page, please present it... Walterblue222 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, there is no policy-based reason for anyone to have to defend "excluding" anything. Rather, it works the other way round: the burden is on those who wish to add something. In addition, WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD argue in favor of the same thing. As a secondary point, I'm not sure if I wish to add any further comment or opinion to a topic whose section title, "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" shows so little attempt to demonstrate a neutral point of view and evinces so little apparent need to assume good faith on the part of other editors here. I'll think some more about this, and whether, and how, to respond further. In the meantime, you could demonstrate your good faith by altering the section title to one that is neutral. Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the worst essay ever published on enwiki (I don't claim that I've read most essays): The goal is to improve enwiki, the R in BRD needs a serious reason, if it is not accompanied by a D. The onus should be on folks who add un-sourced statements, no B excuse, or who remove sourced statements, no R excuse. The D part can be a short edit summary, "unsourced stuff removed" / "twitter is no RS" / …. € 0,02 from the IPs: –84.46.52.182 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Feminism

Feminism is a social movement that appeared on gender discrimination and primarily deals with breaking it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What about that? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing mentioned about it. It only talks about fighting for equal rights with men, which is not accurate. Feminism makes sure that humans are not only hu-men-s, but hu-women-s as well. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social gender equality and fight gender stereotypes. Isn't that what you're saying? --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Page preview for "Third-wave feminism"

When you hover over the link to the article on "Third-wave feminism," the following (incorrect, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic) text is displayed:

"Third-wave feminism is a mental illness characterized by victimization, collective hysteria and denial of biological differences between men and women. It is also a misandric ideology aligned with the dogmas of the extreme left and cultural marxism..."

128.189.135.68 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything we can do. These pop-up boxes are called Page Previews and they're generated automatically based on cached versions of the article they link to. Recent vandalism at Third-wave feminism is the cause of this text but as its edit history shows, it has been reverted so the Page Preview should be fixed automatically after a short while. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

looking for help

Hi,

Since help required for is a women's movement related page just wanted to see some empathy reader reading talk: Feminism page might help.

I am looking for pro-active copy edit support for a newly written Aurat March. Actually article was almost ready & needed a some copy edit and re-paraphrasing support to avoid copyright issues. To be on safer side content is currently removed to bare minimum.

Pl. May be if at all, you can spare some time for re-paraphrasing copy edits. You might need to revisit article history to rescue the same. While Aurat March seems movement well represented in other media social media sources, representation of those women on Wikipedia seems missing so far as opening statements at articles like Feminism in Pakistan deriding the movement in subjective terminology like good feminism & bad feminism. That's why I feel some proactive copyedits will be valuable support.

Thanks & regards

Bookku (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

How to refer to "transgender" as noun

In this article's "Movements and ideologies" section, "Transgender people" subsection,[2] appears this phrase: …some feminists reject "transgenderism" due to views that…

I recently removed the quotation marks around the word "transgenderism", seeing them as scare quotes[3]. User:Mooeena reverted,[4] stating: The word "transgenderism" is only used by people attempting to discredit or otherwise attack the concept of being transgender. It is not proper terminology.

The word "transgenderism" is arguably a neutral noun form of the adjective "transgender", comparable to the word "homosexuality". Oxford[5] and Merriam-Webster[6] dictionaries see it so. WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) seems to agree, since they publish a journal entitled the International Journal of Transgenderism.[7] A cursory Google search finds reliable news sources using the word seemingly neutrally (The Economist,[8] Science Direct,[9] and Pacific Standard[10]).

Do we have a reliable source for the supposed offensiveness of this "-ism" noun form? Do we have a better word? "Transgenderism" gets 984,000 Google results. "Transgenderness" gets 8,310. "Transgenderality" gets 307. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Feminist movement

Feminist movement should just redirect to feminism, unless the body of feminist movement can be expanded in such a way as to not almost completely overlap with the content of the article feminism. Presently the article feminist movement seems to be a loose collection of unrelated contemporary... concepts, movements... nebulous feminism related things? Suffice it to say that if it hadn't been around since 2014 I would WP:A10 it. Ethanpet113 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Here's a thought. Why not include Feminist Movement as a sub category, describing the most important ones, like what started feminism, which ones caused the most change, and which ones have changed what it means." -anonymous

I think that the "feminist movement" is different than the philosophy of feminism. So I don't really support merging. I think that it could be a sub section of feminism. The movement part should focus on ACTIONS taken.----Sue Maberry (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Maberry. The feminist movement goes far beyond the simple definition of "feminism". I believe feminism should stay as it's own page. As the term has had so much growth and focus over the past years, it is important to stay on top of what the term is believed to mean, in the now. The feminist movement, on the other hand, holds its own purpose. The movement stands in order to push change and development in the female role. A separate page for the "feminist movement" is vital, as individuals involved with the movement will have a deeper connection and understanding, in which they can contribute their thoughts there. I don't believe the original definition of a word should be persuaded by its movement. Mentions of it are okay, of course.

•  Comment:: Isn't Feminism a broader topic than that of feminist movement? If we really need to merge/redirect, why not feminist movement merging/redirecting to feminism?--Billionaire Tycoon (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Feminism is the concept of equality. Feminist Movement are the practices that have taken place in the pursuit of feminism. Movements for equality were already happening before the term feminism. Now we use feminism to describe the movements as feminist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbece (talk • contribs) 20:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Feminist movement should be redirect to feminism. There should also be a merging of the 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormcloak EthnoNationalist (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

See Civil and political rights (with its redirect Civil rights) and compare and contrast with Civil rights movement. There are good reasons why they are and should be separate articles. If you don't understand this, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. General Ization ^Talk 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oposse merge A movement/several movements is not the same thing as the philosphy and thought process.★Trekker (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment: Are the two articles written distinctly, such that one is about a philosophy, the other about a political movement? I'm not seeing quite that they are, which might warrant either a merge or a transfer of some content. Though I don't envy such tasks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As others have written: an ideology and a movement are not the same thing. One can even exist without the other on a given issue. If the present articles don't reflect that, the way forward is to differentiate them, unenviable though it might be. But if many people do it bit by bit… 151.177.57.131 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding boys and men to Template talk:Feminism sidebar

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Feminism sidebar#Adding boys and men to the template. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Root definition of feminism

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the genders. This includes fighting gender stereotypes and seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

References

In checking the sources used in this version of the lead, I am having trouble clearly tying what part of these references indicate the "common goal" part of this definition and the second line.

• Hawkesworth pp.25-27 goes through a number of definitions from other authors, and doesn't clearly settle on a concise definition in this page range. I'll also note that the author does have an article at Mary Hawkesworth, but based on the state of it may not be the best, authoritative voice on this.
• Beasley pp.3-11 Seems to primarily define feminism as a reaction to misogyny, but I don't see any passage that concisely connects to the definition we use. Chris Beasley is a lecturer at University of Adelaide, with no Wikipedia article, and the book is from 1999, so again may not be a good, current authority.
• UNESCO source is about a strategy employed by an advertising agency; and UNESCO’s Director for Priority Gender Equality, Ms Saniye Gülser Corat is quoted saying" it is crucial to identify and challenge gender stereotypes in advertising to promote women’s empowerment and gender equality". Its not clear that this quote is a definition of feminism itself; or more broadly, it doesn't seem like this press release is focused on providing such a definition.

If these sources are to be kept, I think we need to add |quote= to the citation templates and make them connect more directly. Otherwise, it might be better to find more authoritative and concise sources for this main definition. We also need balancing, critical views to incorporate into the definition. -- Netoholic @ 00:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic there's more than just the lead and the lead does not require sources unless the subject/definition is controversial. Is there something controversial about the current definition? If so what do you suggest to change it to? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: These sources are given for the lead sentence though. I have no preconceived definition, I just know these sources as I read them don't lead to the current wording. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the inline tag in place, so we can draw attention to this discussion for the time being. -- Netoholic @ 00:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic I removed the UNESCO citation. It seemed totally irrelevant. I'd remove the other sources because I think the definition follows from the body, but I haven't read both of them and I can't attest to their accuracy. You can remove them if you don't think they fit. As for the inline tag, if someone has a issue with the definition they can go to the talk page and then discuss here. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put that tag on something not controversial without a solution in mind. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: Well "controversial" may be somewhat of an exaggeration of the severity of it, but I did read the sources and put my findings above. An inline cleanup tag is appropriate for this, and necessary if something fails verification (WP:V is a core policy). I'm restoring the tag to draw attention to this discussion. -- Netoholic @ 01:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede is sourced on the body of the page. This is why ledes generally don't need citations. Do you think the text of the page supports the text of the lede? Parabolist (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, I added the dictionary definition for verification Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: Wikipedia does not typically use WP:dictionaries as sources. You also left in the other sources which STILL are a WP:V issue... yet again removed the inline tag meant to bring attention to concerns. So far, your participation here has been unhelpful, and infuriating because we've not agreed that the problem is solved, so removal of the tag is distuptive per WP:WTRMT. Why do you keep removing it while discussion is on-going? -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Parabolist: I understand that they don't typically need citations... but if there are citations, as in this case, they should at least verify the content they are used as references for. These citations are only present accompanying the lead sentence. The article doesn't have an etymology or definitions sections to draw from. My read from the article is that the main concern of feminism is in relation to women's issues. If the movement were about broad gender equality (not in reference to women's or men's perspectives) as stated in the lead sentence, why are there no sections about gender inequalities like suicide rates, workplace death and injury, gender disparity in professions like teaching and nursing, parental sole custody disparities, and other issues that are raised by men? Is there feminist literature which advocates for gender equality on these issues? If so, then they aren't present in the article, which leads to the fairly common conclusion that feminism is primarily about gender equality in some areas of interest to women, but not gender equality in all areas. -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

All feminist literature is about gender equality, what are you on about? That's the whole point. This all feels incredibly POINTy, given everything else you've been involved in this month. Parabolist (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's incredibly dismissive. I answered your question and gave a list of specific gender inequalities that aren't mentioned in this article. Is trying to cast aspersions against me personally a way to avoid discussing this? If feminism is about achieving gender equality in all areas, then why are the areas I mentioned not covered here? If some areas of known gender inequality aren't covered here, the lead cannot say or imply feminism is in pursuit of full gender equality... and the lead should reflect that only some areas of inequality are of concern to feminism. -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What do the sources say? This is pretty close to the definition offered by Merriam Webster, Cambridge, and Britannica. Feminism is particularly concerned with addressing sexism and misogyny and the rights of women, and feminism as a movement typically concerns women's equality. So the current definition might be incomplete, but it is verifiable. The lead should follow the sources rather than adhering to any particular editor's personal views on what kinds of gender inequality are missing from contemporary feminism, but yes, there is a long-standing feminist literature that addresses men and masculinity, which might be worth covering here. Nblund ^talk 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

edit: I think SV's edit here addresses the potential concerns about incompleteness.Nblund ^talk 16:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Modern feminism does indeed discuss issues like male suicide and mental health and father's rights. These are seen as issues that stem from patriarchy (given a section in the article) and a fixed view of masculinity (given a paragraph in the article). They are topics that are more recent (as they reflect recent suicide and mental health epidemics), whereas the article has to cover lots of different time periods with due weight. But I would support expansion of these sections (I'm shocked that patriarchy is discussed in such little depth) and think there are other sections which have undue weight (theology, architecture and music). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but Beasley's What is Feminism? has more than 500 citations on Google Scholar and is put out by a major academic publisher, so I think it's probably a good source in general. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Late as well, but just to dot an i and cross a t: regarding Parabolist's assertion that "All feminist literature is about gender equality", Netoholic's reply was accurate and to the point. Not only that, but Parabolist's original comment is incorrect: not all feminist literature is about gender equality. For example, radical feminism is not, and that's a fundamental distinction between it and liberal feminism. Neither is separatist feminism; and there are others. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Womanpower logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Carceral feminism (version 2) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carceral feminism (version 2). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Minor note re: WP:ENGVAR

Due to a minor kerfluffle I've looked through the history of this page, back to 2001. (!) While I am an WP:ENGVAR warrior, even I find no particular variant of English dominant now, at the beginning, or even at intermediate versions of the page. Not withstanding one editor's urge in 2016 to define one variant as king (cough), I don't think a determination is possible or helpful at this point. I will be removing the {{Use Canadian English}} template from top of page as misleading and unhelpful, and especially given the universality of the topic. Shenme (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Shenme's comments. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Request of Help

I was looking for some small help. I created an article User:Bookku/Me Too movement (Pakistan) in user namespace. Article is almost ready but before taking to main namespace Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Using better alternative words etc. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit support

I have been actively supporting some of south Asian women issues related article. While working on article Aurat March relating to International Women's Day protests in Pakistan, I realized public debate in Pakistan has come at cross road over 'My body my choice' and it would be difficult to include all facets in the same & English wikipedia deserves separate article for this issue so I have started an article in draft name space Draft:My body my choice (Feminism). I would welcome any copy edit support for article or links to relevant resources on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)

Thanking in anticipation.

Bookku (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting support

Hello,

Requesting to add women's rights issue article Aurat March to your 'watch list' during week of International Women's Day .

While I am steadily working on article to improve further as suggested in notification template. Article is coming across repeat anon vandalism of intentional misogynistic hate against women's movement plus some un-sourced original research attacks.

It seems to be , being women's day around I worry this vandalism may get repeated.

Please see if you can add article Aurat March to your 'watch list' at least until 12/15 March so any repetition of intentional vandalism can be duly reversed.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Article adoption request

Hi,

Marvi Sirmed is a feminist from Pakistan. If more people do not come forward it won't be a supersize that article Marvi Sirmed likely to get credit of most defamed & vandalized Pakistani feminist article on English Wikipedia.

So making this article adoption request to rescue & protect the same.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.142.234 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Emancipation of women" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Emancipation of women. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleting information about alternative definitions

What is the reason for deleting information about alternative definitions from such dictionaries as “Macmillan Dictionary”, “Collins English Dictionary”, “Cambridge English Dictionary”, “Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English”, etc? The information points out a different key notion. Leaving the information out may lead to misunderstanding of the headword, may it not? The passage was:

Alternative definitions have rights of women rather than equality of sexes as their key notion.

— Fobemipa (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Such a change requires consensus , rather than a declaration on your part that the existing references and definitions shall be ignored because you found another one. You're also breaking formatting. Get consensus here first before embarking on a redefinition in an article that has passed quality review as a Good Article. And as you say, that's a alternate definition, not a primary definition. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is consensus needed when there are reliable sources i.e. authoritative dictionaries that are globally used to find definitions? How can the current definitions and references be ignored if the definitions mentioned by me are clearly marked as alternative? Moreover, no redefinition took place – the information was published alongside the current definition. I don't think I broke formatting, if you disagree, be more specific. I find the deletion unjustified and intend to restore the fragment shortly. – Fobemipa (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia requires consensus, not the determination of a committee of one that they have the only correct view. And yes, your insertion of "authoritative" was out of place. A lot of other editors have wored on this article, and it has been extensively reviewed. Get agreement from other editors. 22:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, you didn't mean to say that I view myself as “a committee of one” with “the only correct view”. Why was the ‘insertion of “authoritative”’ “out of place”? – Fobemipa (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, this does require consensus, because the article is the work of many editors and many past discussions. I notice we've actually had this discussion before. If you make the change again then you will be reverted, which accomplishes nothing for any of us. Please be a bit less combative.

I'm not necessarily opposed to all suggestions of reworking the first paragraph to be more representative of the subject. Perhaps rather than the second and third sentences being about academic theory and "gender stereotypes" and "educational and professional opportunities", we could move some of the feminist movement stuff up to the top. I'd like to mention women's rights and women's suffrage in the first paragraph (and we could also list women's education and women in the workplace to avoid removing the "educational and professional opportunities" content). I think these would be a better way to illustrate the listed dictionaries' secondary definitions than simply stating them. And the second sentence, Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unfairly within those societies, seems to be skirting around a definition of patriarchy, perhaps the most important thing to cover when giving due weight in the lead to the topic of ideology and theory. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

“I notice we've actually had this discussion before”. Sorry, but I can't agree with you. Then we discussed the definition given in the article, now we're dealing with differing definitions. Then I couldn't understand why the definition was the way it was, now I can't understand why information about differing definitions from online sources widely cited in Wikipedia can't be included in the article without achieving consensus on the “Talk” page. Anyway, I posted a section below aimed at reaching the consensus. – Fobemipa (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Fobemipa: Dictionaries are only authoritative for spelling and nothing else. Their definitions are only there to confirm that you have the right word, not to properly explain the topic.

I mean, really, if your doctor said you had a particular disease, and the dictionary used a slightly different word or phrase for one of the symptoms, would you tell your doctor that they're wrong because the dictionary said so?

Dictionaries are not encyclopedias. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

“I mean, really, if your doctor said you had a particular disease, and the dictionary used a slightly different word or phrase for one of the symptoms, would you tell your doctor that they're wrong because the dictionary said so?” No, I wouldn't. I would let them know about the discrepancy, because I would want to make sure they're going to make an informed decision. Not being qualified to contradict doctors in their domain, I still may doubt they're absolutely correct about their diagnoses, as well as you may doubt that I understand the difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias. Do you really think achieving equality of the sexes and making women's rights equal to those of men are “slightly different?”— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fobemipa (talk • contribs)

The only real difference would be that the former definition more openly affects third gender and nonbinary individuals, while the later is silent on them. One could read first wave feminism into the latter definition, but that's not what we do here. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@ian.thompson: re “ Dictionaries are only authoritative for spelling and nothing else. Their definitions are only there to confirm that you have the right word, not to properly explain the topic.” you FUNDAMENTALLY have misrepresented “dictionaries” here. Dictionaries are not spelling bee tools, this would be what is called a prescriptive dictionary, Most dictionaries are Descriptive dictionaries that are authoritative sources on the meaning and usage of words. High levels of scholarship by experts in many fields from entomology to the subject matter Of the word do deep research in order to be authorities on definitions. They are eminently more authoritative on the definition of a word like “feminism” then the self appointed committee who has written this entry. Please see Wikipedia article to understand this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

Before dismissing dictionary definitions the “committee” needs to demonstrate understanding of the authority for the dictionary being cited.

@febomita is told in this discussion to “be less combative” for simply defending their position, Which looks like common sense to me, that including a range of well researched authoritative definitions of feminism from respected source dictionaries sheds light on the topic. I do not understand how this is controversial. While telling the editor to “be less combative” she (I’ll assume) is also attacked in a rude way, accused of attempting to be “a committee of one” with “the only correct point of view” ... ie she is accused of arrogance for having the temerity to try and add sourced authoritative and clarifying information into this article (which I have to say, as a lifelong feminist, I found fairly un-illuminating and patchy).

I do not know what the qualifications are of the committee behind this article, but it indeed reads like it was written by committee as it stands.

The article includes a number of random and at times inaccurate claims that are followed by “citation needed”. How are uncited claims left in the article, while authoritative cited material is deleted?

I came to the talk page to see what could be done about some of that uncited “information”, but am left with the impression that any attempt on my part to engage is likely to be met with hostility.

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia struggles to engage new editors. I see that any content level change is nigh impossible if even the dictionary is out of bounds.

I’d like to see an apology in this discussion to this @febomita for attacking their motivation when from the outside I see someone who tried to make a reasonable and non destructive edit

I am curious on the ratio of men to women working on this article! Jennpublic (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jennpublic: As an uninvolved editor in this discussion I thought I would comment. To take your points in turn Fobemipa stating things like 'I find the deletion unjustified and intend to restore the fragment shortly' is being combatitive and contrary to the (sometimes frustrating) process of building consensus. Your analysis of the other editors being rude is also flawed because those editors are not accusing Fobemipa of being arrogant (something they never state) but of not following Wikipedia protocols. There is a difference. And WP:NAD is relevant to the content of the dispute. Second: the 'committee' that edits this article are just interested editors (as all editors are in Wikipedia) and their qualifications are not relevant for the general editing of the article as long as they follow Wikipedia protocols. Third 'uncited' information is just part of an open encyclopaedia and the tag is there to encourage editors to find reliable sources for a statement. Any editor can challenge any statement and either add a citation or remove the statement. Fourth: while some prospective editors are put off by Wikipedia editing processes and protocols, in my experience there are a significant number that come to Wikipedia with either an agenda or an unwaivering conviction that they know the truth WP:TRUTH. Once these latter editors are challenged about the content they add and Wikipedia protocols are pointed out they often stop editing because they are unwilling to either change their conviction or to not follow Wikipedia protocols. That's their choice. My journey in editing Wikipedia has been one of learning, getting it wrong sometimes and yes having consensus go against you. And consensus WP:CONSENSUS is one of the core things to understand about Wikipedia. So I can't see the basis for an apology. Learning about Wikipedia protocols can be laborious but it is necessary. Lastly the gender of the editors is really irrelevant in their ability to assess the information from reliable sources and to follow Wikipedia protocols. Robynthehode (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding information about definitions with different key notions to the article

There are definitions of feminism with different key notions. Here are some examples taken from some widely known online dictionaries:

The belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state.
– Cambridge Dictionary

The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
– Lexico (Oxford)

The belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
A movement that works to achieve equal rights for women.
– Macmillan Dictionary

The belief and aim that women should have the same rights, power, and opportunities as men.
– Collins Online Dictionary

The belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
– Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

As you see they focus on women's rights rather than on equality of sexes / genders. It may be a good idea to add a passage to the article informing that there are definitions with such a focus. If we agree that the aforementioned sources are descriptive dictionaries then we may have to agree that they reflect how a considerable number of people define the term. If we include the information in the introductory section of the article, we might help Wikipedia readers to form a more balanced idea of what feminism is. In order to do that consensus is needed, so if there are any objections, please, post them in this section. – Fobemipa (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia derives content from full academic sources, not dictionaries. Dictionaries cannot provide the context that is needed. Find academic publications and full-length journalism, not dictionaries. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

“Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources in support of articles”. It does not categorically demand them, it “generally prefers” them. Besides that, we're not talking about replacing the current definition or broadening it, we're talking about informing the reader that there are widely accepted definitions with different key notions recorded in authoritative sources. – Fobemipa (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You've also been told that Wikipedia favors specialist sources over generalist ones, and that dictionaries are only authoritative for spelling and nothing more. You've even acknowledged that dictionaries are not specialist sources. Repeating arguments that even you have (even if you don't realize it) admitted have been countered is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH are appropriate here, this being the third discussion Fobemipa has opened on this subject, the second being the section directly above. There is a clear lack of consensus so far, the objections being those in this section and the previous. — Bilorv (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries are reliable for how a word is used in everyday speech. But this article is not mainly about the word feminism. We don't care how the word is used so much as what in-depth scholarly sources say about feminism as a concept/movement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

I don't think File:8M Paraná 2019 13.jpg is appropriate for the lead section. Per MOS:IMAGES, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." I don't think there is any easy visual representation of a movement and ideology spanning more than a century (more than two centuries if you start with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792) and comprising such a wide range of associated writings, thought, and activism. (Additionally, we shouldn't be labeling people in a photo as "feminists" without a published, reliable source.) I propose moving the image to § Late 20th and early 21st centuries with an appropriate caption. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Link

This page needs a link to the Wikipedia page African feminism--WLBelcher (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've linked African feminism where this same phrase was mentioned verbatim in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Marketplace feminism

A recent edit tied to an edit-a-thon at Penn State added a new section called "Marketplace feminism" to the article. I've reverted, because this seems highly out of proportion here in the main article about feminism, a topic with over a century of history worldwide, and where even variants with long, important histories such as, say, French feminism doesn't have a dedicated section here.

The topic is tied to this book by Andi Zeisler, and is a serious critique, but I don't think it has the visibility or weight (yet?) to deserve its own section here. There are dozens of variants that have their own topic at Wikipedia because they are notable, and even those don't all have such prominence in this article, which is the top of the pyramid for feminism-related articles. Perhaps start more modestly, using Zeisler's book as a citation to some assertion in this article, or in one of the many other topics listed in the Feminism sidebar (top right of the article). Then, perhaps, add a mention of the book in one of the child articles. If that is accepted, and the book or the topic achieves clear WP:Notability then maybe create a Marketplace feminism article. If that achieves significant status equaling other child articles, then maybe add a section about it here, with a {{Main}} link to the child article. But it's premature at this point. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC) (Additional info at your talk page.) Mathglot (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The WP:WEIGHT guideline ("the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all") applied here should make us conclude that the proportion of "marketplace feminism" in this article should be zero, or very near zero. Writing the article first is a start, but even then, the literature on feminism in general should be talking about it a lot more before we include it. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

National variety of English - WP:ENGVAR

A short earlier discussion on this talk page suggested that determining a primary variant of English for this article is impossible (pinging User:Shenme and User:Mathglot). I looked through some of the oldest versions of this article and it seems an edit on December 7, 2001 might be the first on record to include a variant spelling, "criticise", common to U.K. English (link to the diff ). Better detectives than me might find earlier variant spellings (a warning that those early edits are full of ugly POV and vandalism). I am not sure if that version satisfies WP:ENGVAR; it might be considered a stub.

I am hopeful that we can establish a national variety for this article for the sake of consistency. If we can't agree on one by looking at the record, is their precedent for establishing a consensus in the talk page and moving on? Probably easier said than done! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Mark me in favour of whichever variation gets most support from others, so we can get a consensus. I agree there's no primary variant for the topic. It may be easiest to choose whichever is used most in the article (BritEng or AmerEng, I guess). — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks for raising this. Making a decision on a variant based on just a few words going back to 2001 is a bit iffy; that could be somewhat random, based on whatever editor happened to be passing by when an -ise/ize or -or/-our word was added, isn't enough, in my opinion. You really need to look for more of a trend; with a clear base in one variant or another, which then starts to be followed up by other editors.

One issue we can raise and dispense with fairly easily, is MOS:TIES. Since there was early feminist activity (e.g., suffragettes) on both sides of the Atlantic, the topic itself cannot be said to have "strong national ties" to one variant or the other. One might raise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, but by itself, I don't think that's decisive.

I think we could establish one variant as standard by consensus here. A starting point, might be to consider the current version as a snapshot, and count up all the words that are clearly variants on both sides (or all sides), and see what that shows. If there's a clear trend, we could follow that. Note that if there was a clear trend at an earlier point in time, then that would take precedence over a current snapshot. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Great idea! Using the current version, I searched through the text for "ize","ise","iza",and "isa" and counted up uses that are relevant (I didn't count words in quotes or names like Elizabeth). "ize" endings and their derivatives are much more common.

There are far more uses of "our" endings than "or" - for example, 7 uses of "labour" and only 2 of "labor." "Centre" is present a few times and "center" is never used.

"ize" words are more common in general than "our" words, so we could reasonably pick American english. If what I'm reading at Canadian English#Orthography is correct (uses z over s and "our" over "or", perhaps that's the variant most closely adhered to on this page! Much of this is leftover from when User:Acopyeditor declared Canadian and adjusted most of the spelling accordingly. Presumably, subsequent editors stuck to Canadian spelling after his tag in 2016 and before Shenme removed it in 2019.

I'm torn. I don't believe Acopyeditor properly implemented WP:ENGVAR and he certainly didn't work toward consensus. On the other hand, our intention was to establish that whatever variety is currently most established should be formally tagged.

Future editors should note that this is the snapshot edit used for the counts. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Canadian sounds fine to me, regardless of how it came about. Thank you for your research. — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, yes, Canadian does sound fine; it nicely finesses any sense of partiality if either BE or AE was chosen, and in a sense, Canadian sits between the two. Plus, I'm kind of partial to Shulamith Firestone anyway. We should probably sit tight for a while, to see who else might want to weigh in, before tagging the variant at the article. thanks for your initiative on this. Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I just learned about Oxford Spelling at MOS:IZE. Would that make more sense than Canadian? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I prefer Canadian as a sort of compromise. Perhaps there could be a WP:hatnote to explain. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

capitalize the b in "Black" when describing the race, as it is grammatically correct 70.123.41.135 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Right now, the consensus on Wikipedia is to not capitalise skin colours. Looking it up, that seems to be primarily an American thing, while Wikipedia is an international resource. If you have any questions about this, you can leave me a message on my talk page, thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Design and Architecture

User:McPhersonPro, thank you for introducing a section on design. As is, the section is only citing primary sources, and the sources are only really being used as links to works by the people mentioned in the section. Do you have any RS that can support this content?

It did call attention to the nearby Architecture section, which hasn't been substantially altered/updated since 2009, and also relies only on one primary source. I added a Main Article hat to Women in architecture and imagine we can pull in highlights from there. Posting this note in case more expert editors than me have thoughts on how to do this or want to get involved. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers I'm new to Wikipedia - I can absolutely add more detail to the design section - and the architecture section too. I work in these areas. What does RS mean? User:McPhersonPro

Welcome! RS means Reliable Sources, and you can learn more at WP:RS. What I mean here is that we need trusted, secondary sources to support our content. For example, we need a source as evidence that Buckley and Rothschild's writings are iconic in the field. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

Hi Finnusertop, I don't find that Feminism (international relations) is needed as a hatnote link in this article. It is already linked in the sidebar, but it may be a good idea to link to it somewhere in the body. Since the hat is for important navigational aids, do you have any reason to suspect that many readers are ending up here when they intended to get to the IR article? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles of the form Term (subject) are generally good to hatnote because even if it's related to Term or Term (other subject), it's subject-specific jargon with a more particular nuanced meaning. Here I wonder whether Feminism in international relations would be a better title, as the article doesn't seem to be about a different meaning of the word "feminism", but about a specific branch of it. (In the same sense, "COVID-19 pandemic (United Kingdom)" should be "COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom", as "COVID-19" doesn't mean something different when applied to a specific subject area.) — Bilorv (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The parenthetical title was established as part of a desire for consistency in the titling of IR articles. In the move discussion, two of the four non-nominator participants were concerned about including Feminism IR. Whether that article is re-titled or not, I think we can recognize the reality that Feminism IR isn't subject-specific jargon, as you put it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like a dubious move discussion close, but it's been 9 years since anyway. I think several of those targets could do with moving back to where they came from (AjaxSmack was bang on the money about which ones and why). In the meantime, I agree that the hatnote here to Feminism (international relations) is undesirable. — Bilorv (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and appreciated. Once I've built up enough gumption, I'll try for a requested move. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: a move would make the hatnote unnecessary, yes. With the current title the hatnote is mandated by WP:SIMILAR. The third alternative is to change the scope of the already linked Feminists (disambiguation) to cover both terms: "feminists" and "feminism". It already includes one term that is not called "feminists" but "feminist" – Feminist (Pugad Baboy) – that should otherwise be linked directly from the top of this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Finnusertop, and thanks for bringing your thoughts here. I am a huge rule-follower, but I think this might be one case where ignoring the guideline leads to a better Wikipedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I don't think we have to resort to ignoring the rules here. I presented three options. I don't want to appear bludgeoning by repeating these points, but there are clearly ways forward and I don't want this matter to get stuck in limbo when it could be easily fixed in a matter of moments:

1. Keep the hatnote, which seems unpopular but is exactly what the guidelines prescribe if no other action is taken.
2. Rename the article to Feminism in international relations. You yourself said you could start such a discussion. I think the proposal has many merits and I'd probably support it.
3. Broaden the scope of Feminists (disambiguation) to include the term "Feminism". That disambiguation page probably has to be broadened anyway to accommodate for Feminist (Pugad Baboy) or otherwise that article needs a separate hatnote here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

   Fair enough! I don't think you're bludgeoning at all. I think we should 2 and 3. I have some thoughts about next steps that are probably outside the scope of this article, so I'll post at your talk page (and interested editors can head there too). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

Feminism is female oriented concept. How do live female it's teaches the world. Incase any girl or women she changes the rule she called as devil but rules are just a part. Life is apart form the rules. If she wants anything to went on that way people only scolded. World showing women just a beautiful objects. It's not true;because women's also changes the word. Women's want equal rights;and respect; I think mother would teaches the son;that is real feaminism. 2402:3A80:1910:A8F4:C7D4:C601:3624:CEEA (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixing Article Bloat

This article seems to have degraded significantly since the [version] that received GA status. Particularly, the intro includes the issues at the zeitgeist of today's third wave feminism without differentiating them as such, implying issues like male point of view apply broadly to feminism when this is not the case. There also (at least in the intro) seems to be a level of bias in the article's tone, as if originating from a proponent rather than neutral (may be common across political ideology pages). Additionally, some sections which have been added to the article (i.e. architecture) have questionable pertinence and significance.

My opinion is that the article's sections and intro be revised such that they reflect only feminism broadly unless clearly demarcated as referring to a particular period or subset. I also think a lot of the new information added belongs on other articles and not this one, particularly topics only tangentially related to the advancement of women, such as the architecture section previously mentioned.

Basically, I think some parts of the article could be cut or revised, but I'm new to Wikipedia (editing wise) so I don't want to make any big changes unless others agree. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No objections here to removing the architecture section, but if you want to remove more than that then it'd be good for you to lay out exactly which sections (and why if not obvious), as this is a very major article and major changes should probably be discussed beforehand rather than afterwards. Could you expand a bit on what you mean by the lead implying issues like male point of view apply broadly to feminism when this is not the case (which passages and how?) and where there's tone bias? — Bilorv (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts here closely match Bilorv, and I would be interested to hear what else you both think could use some work, besides Architecture. I've previously expressed some misgivings about that section. I had been hoping to have the section summarize Women in architecture, but that article needs quite a bit of work. The Design section, another post-GA addition, also troubles me. Firefangledfeathers 20:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure! A lot of the stuff added to the intro are listings of different feminist causes and issues that would better fit in respective sections (most of the second, fourth, fifth paragraphs and initial sentence of the third paragraph are what I'm referring to). The "Movements and ideologies" section has seen serious bloat; the way it was organized previously was fantastic with broad categories as subheadings and specific sects given hyperlinks and sentence summaries. Now many have their own subheadings with paragraph summaries that seem unnecessary for the main article, especially 'liberal feminism' which has more than a page worth of detail (2nd & 4th paragraphs of which are scholar arguments & seem unnecessary for even a longer summary). In fact, most paragraphs throughout the article dissecting quotations add unnecessary detail, seem like argumentative writing and could be cut (some were present in the old edit I linked previously but I still think this holds true). 'Secular humanism' also seems unnecessary, at least most of it. The section 'Men and masculinity' uses technical and overly complex language. The entire 'Politics' section is a new addition, but much of it could be moved to a new article called 'Feminism and Politics" or something like that. I agree with Firefangledfeathers on the culture section, a lot of it is tangential. The section title 'Affirming female sexual autonomy' sounds like an argumentative point.

Finally (and much less significantly than the preceding), some of my misgivings deal in the framing of feminism presented in the article. What struck me when comparing the archived version was how it originally framed feminism as "equality for women" rather than "equality of the sexes," as it focuses primarily on women's issues with men's issues being a side mention. This is a very minor change but I think it's a subtle indicator of bias in that it reflects how some feminist groups have been framing themselves and not the traditional definition of feminism, and could be evidence of bias present more broadly in the article. What's tough about all of this is that when people discuss feminism they tend to focus on feminism today when the bulk of feminist influence (in the US) was in the 1920's and 1970's (afaik based on my knowledge of American History).

EDIT: forgot to add explanation on what Bilorv said. The idea of 'male gaze' didn't occur until 1972 according to info in Male Gaze which would not make it an issue present in feminist movements before that point, which make up a significant portion of feminism.

Also sorry if this is hard to read, not really sure the best way to format editor comments, as I said I'm not experienced at editing and as I re-read the page I added more and more. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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): Jeannettesalas24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Peer reviewers: Rarober4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweeder13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 16 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alicia.stefi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feminism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is feminism?? 41.114.111.94 (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need RS for "Efforts to change that" part

"Efforts to change that include fighting against gender stereotypes and establishing educational, professional, and interpersonal opportunities and outcomes for women that are equal to those for men. " does not have a RS and either needs a RS or should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:C1AA:79A0:66E:170B (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

These sources are address in the body of the article. So as per WP:LEADCITE it's fine----Cailil ^talk : --Cailil talk 15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism

Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism are two different things and they shouldn't be placed together.

They are plenty of valid criticism of feminism that does not challenge the aspiration of feminism.By combining the 2 it gives the impression that any critic of feminism is anti-feminism(which is not the case), it also delegates any critic to another page entirely(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism)which does not contain criticism of feminism but anti-feminism, effectively giving the impression feminism have both very little opposition, very broad acceptance and that those who are a critic of it are politically motivated. Many critics of feminism are feminists themselves.It's not conceivable that such a broad and decisive movement be exempt of negative consequences. The absence of critics of feminism gives the impression the page is not impartial.Frownupon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the article, study its revision history and its talk page archives carefully before you edit the talk page, let alone the main article. My impression is that having done so you will save a lot of time and effort, even if you're not new to Wikipedia and absolutely sure you're here to make the article better. — Fobemipa (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This response was inappropriate. Frownupon asked a question in earnest and replying with bitterness does no one favors. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Consider assuming good faith, please. — Fobemipa (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Frownupon: a good starting point would be for you to list some thinkers and sources that are not covered here. The first step to fixing the issue could be the creation of new articles or expansion of other ones to cover the subject area you're referring to, or if this coverage is a large part of our articles already then maybe due weight to including the most prominent aspects of the topic can be established. It seems reasonable at face value that we'd need to cover criticisms that particular feminists make of particular branches of feminism, but in practice your comment doesn't give me much to go off. — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: The idea that not all criticism of feminism are anti-feminism is common sense, it shouldn't need a source. The idea of it being otherwise is Manichean and ridiculous. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pernicious.Editor: what text in the article are you proposing be changed, and to what? I don't know why you think anybody has claimed that all criticism of feminism [is] anti-feminism, nor what this statement has to do with improving the Wikipedia article in question. — Bilorv (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pernicious.Editor, “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources…” As far as I can judge, that's one of the core principles of Wikipedia — Fobemipa (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fobemipa: The "in a nutshell" of WP:RS states (emphasis mine) that "Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." If you still don't get it, I'm saying that common sense statements (such as that criticism of feminism and antifeminism aren't mutually inclusive) do not need to be sourced. — Python Drink (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Main point is women's equality

Pinging Getav3i32 and Orangemike.

I removed the recent addition of the following text: "...and establishing opportunities and outcomes for men that are equal to those for women." This text was added to the first paragraph, as if feminism's main thrust includes fighting for men's rights, which is not true.

The guideline WP:LEAD says we should not add new material to the lead section. Rather, we add new ideas to the article body, and if those ideas are important to the main topic, then we can summarize them in the lead section. Of course the most important point of feminism is that it seeks to gain equality for women in a male-oriented world. The article body covers this idea in great detail.

The cited source written by Liz Plank is the mic.com piece "23 Ways Feminism Has Made the World a Better Place for Men". Plank says explicitly that this list is not the main point of feminism: "When you think about feminism, the first thing that comes to mind probably isn't men."

If the progress of feminism benefits men it does so peripherally, not as a primary goal. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The Mic source is not good enough for a lead mention that isn't summarizing body content. I do expect that more could be added to the body about benefits to men of the feminist movement, and perhaps a brief summary in the lead will become evidently due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue as I see it is that people are making editing decisions based on personal opinion. Feminism is a lot of different things, as we say: a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes. Part of this "aim to define and establish" is understanding the role of men in the movement and current society. I'm not going to comment on what I think about the claim "If the progress of feminism benefits men it does so peripherally, not as a primary goal", other than to say that it is not universally agreed in expert sources.

I don't agree with the proposed addition. In a literal sense, "establishing opportunities and outcomes for men that are equal to those for women" has exactly the same meaning as "establishing opportunities and outcomes for women that are equal to those for men" because "equal" is symmetric (if X equals Y then Y equals X). However, it is true that there is a specific connotation to the sentence and order of "women"/"men". This seems completely in line with the history and mainstream understanding of feminism.

The Mic source is not appropriate in this context, as Firefangledfeathers says. There is room somewhere, whether in this article or another, for content about how feminism relates to improving the lives of men (if at all). I doubt it would be due weight for the lead in a long-termist, holistic view of feminism as a social movement, ideology and political label to organise around. — Bilorv (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

People gotta understand that feminism is most assuredly not anywhere close to "[an ideology that aims to] define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes", at least anymore. It's about making women more privileged than man, basically misogyny but the female version. Feminine is literally what the word feminism is based on. Third and fourth wave feminism is nothing like the first and second wave. There's a difference between giving everyone equal rights versus only focusing on giving a specific group more and more rights. The latter is not equal or fair; it should be mentioned and talked about more. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Malarkey. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Did my response not turn out to look like an agreement to your original comment? Or did you mean something else? I'm just saying it's not logical to define "feminism" without the use of 'advocacy of women's rights' or something related to women, it's not necessarily advocacy for equality because that is nonsensical and not reality. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The "malarkey" comment was because you are saying feminism seeks to give an unfair advantage to women, when the whole purpose was to equalize the rights given to each sex. Feminism is not and never has been about seeking an unfair advantage for women. Only lower status males who feel threatened by equality talk about feminism in this fashion. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: article talk pages aren't for debates based on opinion or personal attacks. You should know better. — Python Drink (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am pointing out to the Indiana IP editor that their rant about feminism has no leverage here. This person wants to redefine the topic to align with their unsupported opinion. My "malarkey" comment is not a personal attack, but it certainly aimed to shut down this empty and time-wasting attempt at redefinition. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"The "malarkey" comment was because you are saying feminism seeks to give an unfair advantage to women..." It's becoming more and more common though. You may be confusing different forms or waves or effects of feminism.

"...when the whole purpose was to equalize the rights given to each sex." Not as much as before. That at least has to be acknowledged. To say that feminism has not caused any harm or that feminists have never tried to decrease the rights of anyone is real malarkey and fictitious. Would you agree that it makes misandry somewhat easier though? And we don't need misandry or misogyny. Read on.

"Feminism is not and never has been about seeking an unfair advantage for women." That's where you're dead wrong if not trying to twist it. Yeah, feminism is usually explained and viewed as fighting for equality but it's an umbrella term so you gotta be specific. I'm trying to say it's basically focused and advocating on women's equality. But sometimes that only includes women and excludes men. Sounds sexist doesn't it, but it isn't. A lot of feminist rhetoric today does cross the line from attacks on sexism into attacks on men. And antagonism does nothing to advance the unfinished business of equality. To some extent, the challenge to men and male power has always been inherent in feminism. The more radical you get, the worse it gets. Authors like Andrea Dworkin and Marilyn French depicted ordinary men as patriarchy’s brutal foot soldiers. This tendency has reached a troubling new peak, as radical feminist theories that view modern Western civilization as a patriarchy have migrated from academic and activist fringes into mainstream conversation. I'm getting this info from WP and other sites, by the way. Any objection to feminism shouldn't be automatically labelled and shunned as something illegal or misogynistic. Feminism as a movement gets a lot right: equality for all shouldn't be up for debate. But feminism as an institution has become regressive in many cases. If you're still confused then answer this, would it make sense for the definition of feminism (at least what the effects and outcomes that it has turned into now) to not include "woman"? Because it doesn't. We're at a vague point, are we? Would just seem hypocritical to use "feminism" instead of "humanism" if we're talking about humans overall. So I'm also saying it's not simple and I'm not stuck talking about only on form or all of it. Look at the last paragraph of the "Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism" section which isn't anti-feminist but simply sound criticism.

"Only lower status males who feel threatened by equality talk about feminism in this fashion." Or people who want balance, real equality, and what's better for the future. If you're still confused, then please reread this comment or ignore. Just remember questioning something doesn't mean one's against it, but instead just want to clarify something or be skeptic about weak parts which can lead to improvements. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you please remove all the bold from your comment (see WP:SHOUT). I haven't read it all, but my sense is we're getting into the weeds on a debate about what feminism is. If there's a concrete suggestion for a change to the article, could someone restate it briefly and include the sources that support it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)