| Revision as of 06:58, 5 June 2013 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 90d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 3.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:45, 13 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 6) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Feminism/Tabs}}</noinclude> | <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Feminism/Tabs}}</noinclude> | ||
| {{talk header |wp=yes|search=yes}} | {{talk header |wp=yes|search=yes }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Feminism}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-03-07/WikiProject report|writer=]|day=7|month=March|year=2011 }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(60d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=3 |units=months }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== Geena Davis Institute article == | ||
| A discussion of a move of ] to ] has been opened ]--] <sup>]</sup> | |||
| == Postcolonial Feminism == | |||
| My classmate and I are working on vastly improving the page on Postcolonial Feminism for one of our courses this semester. We would like to improve the clarity and organization of the page, but many of the articles that extrapolate on specific variants of feminism do not have a particular form or structure. Does anyone have advice on how to approach this project? | |||
| Also, it is possible that we will have the capability to update the two paragraphs on postcolonial feminism and third-world feminism within the variants subsection of the feminist theory page. | |||
| Thanks so much! | |||
| ] (]) 03:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! I would like to expand a little bit on what we will be doing to the Postcolonial feminism page. We want to rewrite and expand this article, which is currently ranked start class. This will involve adding more information to the current sections “History” and “Relationship to Western feminisms” and substantially revising the introductory part of the page. We will also be creating new sections “Theories and Ideologies” and “Critiques of Postcolonial feminism.” Any ideas that anyone has for resources or how to tackle revising this page would be much appreciated! Thanks! | |||
| ] (]) 03:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| It might be useful to distinguish between Postcolonial Feminism as described in the article and feminist movements in the formerly colonised nations. The former's concerns (about recognition by western feminism, analysing the intersections of race and colonial domination, etc) stem from the struggles of third world women living in the 'West' (btw, third world as a term has been more or less replaced by 'global South'). Feminisms in for example South Asia, East Asia or West Asia are movements organised around local issues, whether it is sexual violence in India or licensed sex workers in Taiwan or comfort women in Japan or definitions of women's work in most places. Do take a look at the old classic by Kumari Jayawardene, Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World (London: Zed Books, 1986) which has its own entry in Misplaced Pages. Happy to supply more references (from across Asia in particular, but also from the Caribbean and Africa). | |||
| ] (]) 13:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Take a look at the Feminism in India entry in the EN Misplaced Pages. While it needs some editing, it provides a good overview of the history of the women's movement, and the citations as well as references for further reading are spot on. When you go through this entry, my point about the distinction between 'postcolonial feminism' and 'feminism in non-western countries' would be quite clear. | |||
| ] (]) 03:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Women photographers for Women's History Month == | |||
| Some of us have been working on better coverage of women photographers in connection with this year's ] (i.e. this March). While we now have some 370 biographies, most of which are summarized on the ], there still appear to be considerable gaps for several countries. Furthermore, many of the existing biographies need attention, especially for some of the pioneering feminists. Before the end of the month, I will also be making a start on an article devoted to "Women in photography", something of a historical account along the lines of last year's ]. In addition to actual contributions, any suggestions for women deserving coverage would be warmly welcomed. Their names can be listed here or even as red links on the list providing a reference is given. I would also welcome online sources on the history of women in photography, especially overviews. You can make comments and suggestions here or on my talk page.--] (]) 15:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :We've now made huge progress on the ] and the article ] is also coming along quite well. As always, you are welcome to contribute to both of these. In particular, the article would benefit from a section on the difficulties women have faced in entering photography as a profession despite recent progress in many (but certainly by no means all] countries.--] (]) 09:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Input needed at RfC on ] == | |||
| Input is needed at an RfC: ]. The question is whether material from an activist can be included in the ] article. --] (]) 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually what is needed even more is someone to rewrite the section on "Global rape culture" (see discussion for alternate names) in an NPOV way. No one has stepped up yet, including me. '']'' 14:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this of interest to this project? == | |||
| Folks on this project might want to weigh in at this discussion: ]. I noticed that all the articles in this move request are now titled "suicide of..." AND are 100% about either women/girls or boys alleged to be gay. On the surface, the discussion is over ], but IMHO, the discussion is really about if they deserve the dignity of having an article titled with simply their name, or if the "suicide of" title is because that's the "only" thing they are "notable" for. I know I'm inserting my own bias in this comment, but when I made the argument there that everyone notable enough for a WP article deserves, in basic human dignity, to have it titled ] and not ], I hadn't noticed that there was also the anti-female and anti-gay slant. Anyway, whether I'm right or wrong, I see a pattern and y'all may want to take a look and comment. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Edited Page == | |||
| Check out the updated ] page! We worked all semester on it. Any additional edits are welcome. | |||
| ] (]) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC notification == | |||
| There's an RfC at ] about the inclusion of images of female porn stars in that article, if anyone is interested. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm in too many other projects and shitstorms (see above) to wade into that one, but once again, it appears we have yet more evidence of the notorious demographic skewing of wikipedia editors who just don't get it about respect and human dignity. I agree that the use of women's bodies is inappropriate exploitation in that context, FWIW. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I understand about being overstretched, but it would definitely help if you'd express a view, especially as one editor has posted a notification to WikiProject Pornography. I'm anticipating the usual WP:NOTCENSORED argument, which misses the point, but it's appearing already. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Ongoing merger proposal needing input == | |||
| There is a proposal that the ] article be split and merged into ] and ]. Please add your input; comments; and share expertise ]. Thank you. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Gender bias task force == | |||
| There's a proposal to set up a gender bias task force. Input would be very welcome. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Help cleaning up Category:Prostitutes == | |||
| Yesterday, I discovered ]. After looking through the subcategories I was appalled to discover that a large number of the listings in this category were based on uncited claims that the person once worked as a prostitute. For ] articles, this is especially problematic, but even for non-BLPs we should not be listing people in occupational categories unless they had a notable career in that occupation or they self-identify with that profession (and it is cited as such). If a person worked for a year when they were 18 as a dishwasher, we don't put them in the Dishwashers category. I was especially appalled to find ] categorized as a prostitute, considering she spend much of her life campaigning against prostitution. I've already removed some of the BLPs, but could use help cleaning up the rest. ] (]) 17:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Before we do anything else, we should remove the category from ''all'' biographical articles that do not have a ''cited'' reference to their having worked as a prostitute. | |||
| :::Hold on - I've checked several of the bios recently removed, and almost all of them either had sources in the article already, or easily findable sources. While I agree with the general approach, before removing any category from any article, please at least do a cursory search to see if it can be established. Another categorizing machine has been known to remove "African-American" cats from tons of bios just because it isn't specifically referenced in the article, even though a cursory search would be able to establish this - so please search first (this applies to removal of any category, not just this one).--] (]) 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :After that, we should think carefully about what the label means. In its present form, it smacks of old-fashioned moralism, in which having ever once worked as a prostitute makes you "''a'' prostitute" -- somehow a marked person, forever different from other people --as if it was some kind of scarlet letter. We don't do this for other old-fashioned moral categories: we don't have, for example, a ], and apply this to everyone who's ever had an affair, or a category ], for everyone who's ever had sex outside of marriage. | |||
| :If we regard this is a profession-based category, we could legitimately include who have made careers out of prostitution. Apart from that, a "former prostitutes" category might make sense -- but in many cases even that might not be relevant. In Dworkin's case, it seems quite relevant; her experiences appear to have been something she wrote about (see for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/jun/08/society), and they were one of the things that led to her later opposition to prostitution. In other cases, it may not be biographically relevant at all. -- ] (]) 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, if we had a "former prostitutes" category, I would be comfortable having Dworkin in it, but categorizing her as a prostitute, as if that were part of her identity is problematic, IMO. I'm more comfortable having someone like ] in the prostitutes category, since she had a more ambivalent relationship to prostitution and apparently spent much of her life working as a prostitute. ] (]) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That seems right to me. I suggest we create a ], and put edge cases like Dworkin's in it, where it was a biographically relevant experience, but was not a central part of her life, leaving ] to clear cases of career prostitution (like the indefatigable ]), and taking ''everyone'' else, where it isn't supported by reliable sources as biographically relevant, out completely. -- ] (]) 18:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It gets worse. Digging down further, I notice that, for example, ] <s>is</s> was a sub-sub category of this. This is grotesque. Many royal mistresses, of course, ''were'' courtesans, but far from all, the two terms are not synonymous, and making the association is quite wrong. Someone, somewhere, seems to have set themselves up as the morality police.-- ] (]) 18:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm looking for Category:Arrested or Admitted Johns (or euphemism therefore). Can't even find an article under ]. Do see this sentence in ]: ''The clients of prostitutes are also known as johns or tricks in North America and punters in the British Isles.'' (no wikilinks) What am I missing? ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep, no Category:Johns. Somehow the asymmetry isn't surprising :P I would favor fixing Category:Prostitutes over adding Category:Johns, however :) ] (]) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Absolutely. I'm also finding it hard to imagine a scenario in which someone might the same criteria we're proposing for Category:Prositutes here, by somehow making a living at being a ''professional'' John. Still, the world is wide. and there's always room in ]... -- ] (]) 23:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Just a friendly reminder that in cases of living or recently deceased people, accusations of illegal work (as prostitution is in some jurisdictions) can be considered libelous. If, in the process of this cleanup, anyone comes across articles with unsourced assertions of prostitution involving living or recently-deceased people, or anything else particularly egregious, please ] so we can handle them. ] (]) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most definitively. Mere accusations without pretty definitive evidence shouldn't be used in either case. | |||
| ::But back to the "Johns" issue, it looks like they are usually called the less demeaning "client" or "customer." See ], ] (which actually has some ref'd content on "clients"), ] or ] (most famous I could think of off hand; no category noticed for "clients of prostitutes"). Think I'll put a relevant article on my wish list of articles to create (sometimes people see my list and do it!). What should it be called? ] or ]? Or something else? Decisions decisions. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 02:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I saw this too, triggered by the ] article. So what is the call to action here? Checking BLPs? It'd be nice to have a few clear calls to action so some of us can get started and not stress too much (yet) about drama. :) ] (]) 03:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Well, a ] query for articles lying within the category tree of Category:Prostitutes is probably a good place to start -- if you select the wikitext format for output, then after filtering it down by piping the output through | |||
| <nowiki>grep -v "* \[\[:Category" | grep -vE "Fictional|Types_of" | grep -Ei "prostitutes|courtesans"</nowiki> | |||
| , it lists about 250 individual articles that will need checking. Note that the category tree data is almost two days out of date: for example, the results currently reflect the "royal mistresses" sub-sub-category nonsense I was talking about earlier, that I believe I have already found and fixed above. For a list of high-priority articles, you can run the previous CatScan query with an intersection with Category:Living people, and this reduces the list to 60 or so.. -- ] (]) 16:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''': The following discussion may be relevant: ]. The jist of it is I'm proposing to separate the tree by gender - as is it currently (in many cases) assumes female as the default, and there is a separate category for male prostitutes. I think we should get rid of the default/ungendered cat or rename it to Country X Female Prostitutes. This is just a test nomination, depending on the results I will nominate the rest of the tree. Please weigh in. | |||
| *Commenting on the above, ], is the standard for inclusion in any category per ] - I don't know if you need to go much further than that. If someone once worked as a prostitute, it is only DEFINING if reliable sources regularly mention it - so there are some clear members of this cat (like ]), but also others that are debatable. Dworkin for example probably would fit, as several sources reference that she once did this work, and those experiences obviously impacted her future activism. I don't agree with the self-identification thing though - I'm sure there are many people who don't self-identify as things that reliable sources do identify them as - usually self-identification is only used for gender/sexuality. | |||
| *I don't think we need a separate category for "former" - I haven't seen many "former + jobtitle" cats - all job titles are assumed to be notional, not a description of current day. We don't have "former Senators from Illinois" on Barack Obama's page for example. | |||
| *On the issue of whether courtesans/etc should be sub-catted under here is a good point - that whole tree should probably just be a sibling rather than a sub-cat of prostitutes, as not all courtesans were prostitutes, etc. | |||
| *On the issue of johns, that could fit under {{cl|Criminals by crime}}; however solicitation is in most cases, esp for a first offence, a misdemeanor, and I don't think we categorize other misdemeanors, at least not many of them- most seem to be felonies of the more serious type. It may be worth bringing the crime project into this, if there is one. Also I'm not sure if this is a symmetry issue - the classification of prostitute is as a job, without any implication of its legal status, and bios aren't (necessarily) being branded a criminals by being placed within. The symmetry would come into play if we had {{cl|People convicted for prostitution}} for example, but I don't think that cat exists.--] (]) 05:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *One more point - often the term ''sex worker'' or ''escort'' is used (and we have escort categories, which is a bit of a blurry line also) - but I'm wondering if a better word than 'prostitute' can be found, since it's sometimes a neutral job description, but sometimes a slur. Sex worker is now a higher-level categorization that captures the broader scope of sex work, so may not work here. --] (]) 15:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Re: "separate the tree by gender" - Already done and there's a template there about changing. Check it out ] | |||
| *:] does exist and probably a good place to discuss this; they may have some policy or at least past discussions. | |||
| *:Re: "a separate category for "former" - as long as it is made clear in article whether a person is no longer working in the profession | |||
| *:Just as there is ] and ] there should be and ]. Because these are not necessarily overlapping categories, depending on the individuals. | |||
| *:These are under the larger ] which just needs ]. (Plea bargains are technically convictions.) So who beside spitzer can we put in there? Cute little ] for starters. Who else? | |||
| *:Prostitute "sometimes a neutral job description, but sometimes a slur." - just make sure the article says that with WP:RS. We can't clean up all reality. And "sex workers" is my preferred because many individuals "in the life" at some point do a variety of "jobs." ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 00:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! I'm Robin, posting here as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of the ]. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on the article Talk page and on my User page. | |||
| '''Reply to Carol''': | |||
| :*Re: "separate the tree by gender" - Already done and there's a template there about changing. Check it out ] | |||
| :::yes, but there's no {{cl|Female prostitutes by nationality}}, and that template is just a bulk nomination to use female or women consistently, it has nothing to do specifically with the tree. My proposal - which is a test starting with Vietnamese prostitutes, is to eliminate the non-gendered container categories - it will be much easier if we enact a rename of all the cats vs creating female sub-cats and moving everyone. -obi | |||
| *:] does exist and probably a good place to discuss this; they may have some policy or at least past discussions. | |||
| *:Re: "a separate category for "former" - as long as it is made clear in article whether a person is no longer working in the profession | |||
| ::: again, I wasn't able to find any other 'former' + job formulations - it's just not done, so I would oppose such a cat unless better reasons can be brought forth to make an exception -obi | |||
| *:Just as there is ] and ] there should be and ]. Because these are not necessarily overlapping categories, depending on the individuals. | |||
| *:These are under the larger ] which just needs ]. (Plea bargains are technically convictions.) So who beside spitzer can we put in there? Cute little ] for starters. Who else? | |||
| :::I'd like to hear from the crime project. If we start categorizing by misdemeanors that might cause a ton of clutter and also may not be defining - for example in articles I've seen about prostitutes they rarely discuss in detail whether he/she was arrested - what is more defining is that they did this work. Plus given that this is not illegal in all parts of the world it's a strange thing to categorize on - better to discuss such things in the article -obi | |||
| *:Prostitute "sometimes a neutral job description, but sometimes a slur." - just make sure the article says that with WP:RS. We can't clean up all reality. And "sex workers" is my preferred because many individuals "in the life" at some point do a variety of "jobs." ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 00:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm looking for help improving the article, which has become a bit overly detailed and self referential. You can see my proposed changes ]. The version I've proposed brings it back to focus on secondary sourcing. I'm posting here since the article is listed within this WikiProject's scope. Thanks for taking a look. Cheers! ] (]) 16:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::(Copied my original comments; best not to interrupt others', FYI) Anyway, at this point working with ] probably is the best idea. My enthusiasm probably doesn't extend beyond this talk page, but it there's some resolution we can help with after discussing their, report back. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 02:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| == Trolling == | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --] ] 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Marie Curie == | |||
| :''As with the rest of Misplaced Pages, trolling (posting intentionally provocative or disruptive comments) will not be tolerated.'' | |||
| If Maria Skłodowska-Curie, commonly known as Marie Curie, wanted her surname to be Skłodowska Curie and her page should reflect that. It is only her common name because of sexism and xenophobia. See a further discussion here: <nowiki>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzY5m_5ki0c</nowiki> ] (]) 07:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Reading this made me wonder some things. Firstly: is something more specific meant by 'provocative'? Surely all communication aims to provoke reading, thinking and responses. In the above section, Kaldari aims to provoke co-operative clean-up of a category, for example. Is there an adjective that could be affixed to provocative to clarify it's meaning? Like the attempt to provoke a certain type of thing? | |||
| :@], I understand the want to correct for historical injustices, but as an encyclopedia our role is to reflect sources, including when they change their stances on such things. It is our duty to inform readers about the world and how it is viewed as it is, not as what it should be. I recommend you take a look at ]. If you feel there are times this position further hampers marginalized voices, I would submit that it at least also protects them at a far greater rate. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Also, how does one determine whether or not disruption is intentional? Couldn't the very discussion of WikiProject policy like this post be labelled disruptive for not being specifically about Feminism and rather the project's policy regarding communication? ] (]) 08:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this is kind of like "what is the definition of porn" - the response being, you know it when you see it. If someone posts a comment that is obviously trolling, community consensus will delete such comment. If only 1 person thinks it's trolling and 20 others think it's fine, then the comment would remain. I don't think defining trolling more specifically here will help - you know it when you see it. --] (]) 15:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ]. No offense intended. ] (]) 17:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| :::It's probably trolling if it's only agenda is to provoke response. If it's provocative or disruptive comments in order to push one's agenda in an article, it's disruptive editing/edit warring. But there can be a fine line where even the poster doesn't know their intent!! ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Lizzy Seeberg == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'm not sure the ] article meets ]; I re-worded some of the article but I would like other editors to take a look ] (]) 06:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:45, 13 November 2024
| Main page | Talk page | Members | Resources | Popular pages |
|---|
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Feminism and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | WikiProject Feminism was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 7 March 2011. |
Geena Davis Institute article
Hello! I'm Robin, posting here as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of the Geena Davis Institute. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on the article Talk page and on my User page.
I'm looking for help improving the article, which has become a bit overly detailed and self referential. You can see my proposed changes here. The version I've proposed brings it back to focus on secondary sourcing. I'm posting here since the article is listed within this WikiProject's scope. Thanks for taking a look. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Gender self-identification#Requested move 20 September 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gender self-identification#Requested move 20 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Marie Curie
If Maria Skłodowska-Curie, commonly known as Marie Curie, wanted her surname to be Skłodowska Curie and her page should reflect that. It is only her common name because of sexism and xenophobia. See a further discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzY5m_5ki0c Enfyslemle (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Enfyslemle, I understand the want to correct for historical injustices, but as an encyclopedia our role is to reflect sources, including when they change their stances on such things. It is our duty to inform readers about the world and how it is viewed as it is, not as what it should be. I recommend you take a look at why we can't right great wrongs. If you feel there are times this position further hampers marginalized voices, I would submit that it at least also protects them at a far greater rate. Remsense ‥ 论 07:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Sexism in the technology industry#Requested move 23 October 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexism in the technology industry#Requested move 23 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Lizzy Seeberg
I'm not sure the Death of Lizzy Seeberg article meets WP:NPOV; I re-worded some of the article but I would like other editors to take a look Joeykai (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: