Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 8 January 2015

• WT:GGTF

• Welcome to the GGTF: the gender gap task force. Please sign up if you'd like to help.
• The talk page is for friendly discussion about anything related to closing Misplaced Pages's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, and so on.
• Add new posts to the end or click here to start a new topic.
• Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Useful links

Misplaced Pages's gender gap on Twitter

• WikiWomen's Collab @WikiWomen
• GenderGapOnWikipedia @SaidOnWP
• Also see the Ada Initiative @adainitiative

Wikimedia Foundation gender gap mailing list

• How to subscribe
• Archives

Need active peer reviewers

The projects Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Feminism/Peer review, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women's History/Peer review, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gender Studies/Peer review really need active peer reviewers, so if some people could click on those articles and add their usernames under the Active Peer reviewers section that would be great. Thanks!

List of feminist comic books

I created a List of feminist comic books in tandem with the creation of a stub for Priya's Shakti. Someone has already proposed deleting it, without any discussion. I DEPROD-ed it, but just in case it turns into an AFD, thought I'd place a heads-up here. Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support the deletion unless you can provide some reliable sources showing that it is a majority view and even then it needs to be presented in a WP:NPOV way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:V and, for some entries, WP:NLIST. It might also be worth noting that, like categories, list articles really should be based on commonality of discussion in reliable sources. That is, you can't just create a list out of thin air by assembling what you think is valid: people need to have discussed the focus of the list itself. Or something like that (I'm not explaining myself very well, sorry, but there is a guideline/policy/essay somewhere). - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that you should have de-prod'ed it yourself, given that you are the creator. It might be strictly permissible but, really, the best option would probably have been to open a discussion on the talk page. Reviewing admins would take account of that. Certainly, I wouldn't de-prod my own stuff and, as happened only a few hours ago, I don't close even obviously incorrect AfD noms involving my creations. Better to be safe than potentially create another wikilawyering battleground. - Sitush (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's bad advice. Article creators don't have to sit on their hands and not de-prod an article; it can't prejudice a later discussion that the article creator still thinks their article is worthwhile enough to not delete without a fuller rationale given by the nominator. Now for actual AfD noms, an article creator couldn't close them if they wanted to, so it's not exactly a choice you were exercising.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a really bad idea to de-prod and not give a rationale on the article talk page. That's where the action should happen, not here or anywhere else. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability requirements for a list article are discussed at WP:LISTN, but it's vague. My guess is that this list is reasonable, but it's a while since I've seen lists argued at AfD.

Elaqueate is correct about prod: the article creator is welcome to remove the prod; ideally they would outline their reason in the edit summary (which was done), but there is no requirement for the creator to start a discussion anywhere.

With regard to this GGTF page, it is perfectly reasonable for a neutral statement to be made at a relevant wikiproject, as was done. However, this page should not be used to pile-on objections. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)From Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion: "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". Prodding an article within a day of its creation is often questionable in the first place. Certainly the can be legitimate reasons to do this (e.g. an article that barely avoids speedy deletion, but has little prospect of ever becoming a valid article), but I can't see the justification for this prod. The article needed to cite sources - and a note to that effect on the talk page would have been adequate to indicate this. If there was no response, after a reasonable time, then it might be appropriate to propose deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that something was required; I said it was a bad idea not to explain fully. Edit summaries rarely have the room to do that. I won't be commenting on this list anywhere other than here. I don't think it was at all neutral to post a "heads-up" in case an AfD situation might occur, especially for something that really relates more to the feminist project that this one. "Neutral" would be "Article XYZ is currently at AfD. Please comment as you see fit." - Sitush (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A recent example: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#AFD_Saffron_Terror. - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that you should have de-prod'ed it yourself, given that you are the creator ... Better to be safe than potentially create another wikilawyering battleground. - Sitush

The very notice placed on my talk page after the article was PRODed said, "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page ... Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised." I did both of those things, and no "battle" was started over the de-prod, though there are certainly a handful of editors who don't like the article... but that discussion is going on there. Lightbreather (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Back to the article - good job! I like a (mostly) well sourced list. --GRuban (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I also want to add how is this any different than making an article about scary movies? List of scary movies, same thing some people think a select group of movies are scary, others do not seeing that all of the titles in this list are marked as being feminist it is not a NPOV list without the other side's say in the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that we don't, or should not have an article like List of scary movies ? I think we do have an article like that somewhere, a very comprehensive one, and expanding all the time. I will find it for you if you are willing to make this same argument about NPOV there. If you think it is not NPOV without the other side getting a say, I support you and welcome you to find the "other side" or other views, if they exist at all.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Priya's Shakti at WP:RSN

I have started a discussion about Priya's Shakti at RSN that some members of this group may find relevant to the gender gap.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not relevant, and the scope is vague in this regard. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple transclusions and, maybe, creation of women's noticeboard

I've said before that I think the best way to proceed would be to find out, probably through a broadly-publicized RfC, which topic areas around here women are particularly interested in and also which areas they feel are perhaps in some way subject to systemic bias of the largely male editing population. However, if there are any existing projects which individuals feel relevant to this group, I think it would be possible to transclude the article alerts notifications and maybe assessment pages into a subpage here. Also, if this were to become, as it were, a kind of "superproject" about women's issues and topics of particular interest to women, it might well be possible, maybe, to turn one or more related wikiproject talk pages into redirects to a more central project-wide talk page, like WP:MILHIST has done. That talk page could function as a form of "noticeboard" for those topics. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Q. "which topic areas around here women are particularly interested in"

A. All topic areas. There is no such thing as a female topic area. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply noting that the above comment seems to rather pointedly ignore one of the quesitons asked, which is, and I quote, "which areas they feel are perhaps in some way subject to systemic bias of the largely male editing population." If people are going to respond in a way which can seem to cast aspersions on the person they are responding to, they could at least make a bit clearer effort to actually also respond to the questions asked. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, if it were just me doing this, these would be some of the steps I would take to develop this project:

1) Go to the Guide to Reference website (anyone is I think given a two-month free trial subscription) and find the reference works it lists which deal broadly with the relevant topics. Then, put together a list of those works in some place readily accessible to other members of the project.

2) For the reference works there which are broadly of an encyclopedic nature, put together lists of articles and named subarticles similar to the one at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles which could be used by other members to locate topics and sources.

3) Maybe set up a project banner which would allow quality and importance assessments, perhaps particularly including a "missing" article quality status. This could be used to indicate specific articles or significant named subarticles found in encyclopedic sources which exist or don't exist here yet, and the relative quality of same.

4) Work to get together a list of periodicals and websites for specific relevant topic areas which could also be prominently linked to in the pages of the relevant projects.

5) Get together a list of individuals who would be willing to use their access to some of the databanks available from the Misplaced Pages Library to find relevant materials, and, maybe, a list of individuals who can check relevant acaademic libraries in their areas which might be useful.

6) Once all of that is done, maybe try to start some sort of regular collaboration or content development contest similar to others which exist here.

Just a few ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Article talk page template

Does the project have an article talk page template? I checked the archive and I hope I'm not opening a can of worms by just asking about it, but it would seem that having one might be helpful to add to articles about people or subjects that the GGTF is trying to save and/or maintain. Thx and Happy Holidays, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see one. I would be willing to help put together a broad topical project banner, maybe something along the lines of Template:WikiProject Christianity, if editors here wanted to maybe merge some of the possibly inactive existing related projects into one single entity with a common banner. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Holy templates, Batman" that's quite a template. That's got to be the "Mother of all templates"... OK, kidding aside, how can I help? Personally, I like seeing a dedicated page where all of the details and uses can be listed along with a link on the main page so that its easy to find as with other projects. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Topical topics

I'm not sure exactly what goes on here but down at the coal-face, I keep bumping into issues that involve feminism or the female POV in some way. FWIW, here's a recent list:

• basic bitch — I came across this at AFD. It's too misogynist and recentist for my taste but others differ

• representation of Women in The Big Bang Theory — another one from AFD, as that's my main patrol zone. It's not really in our house style but I have the feeling that there's something to this one. Perhaps it needs merging into a more general page like women in science?

• quarter yard. This is one of several tetchy deletion debates about obscure units of measure. The female angle here is that the unit is most commonly used for fabrics and so shows up in quilting books and the like. Fabrics, textiles and related crafts generally seem neglected on Misplaced Pages - see wrap reel for a related recent addition too. Likewise, there's a bunch of culinary units in the firing line here. And, as a strange coincidence, when working on this bundle, I found that that one of the authorities on Ethiopian weights and measures was the son of Sylvia Pankhurst, the famous suffragette. It's a small world...

Note also that I have a new female editor as a protegé - user:Mauladad. I have been protecting her first effort but worry that the immediate exposure to the Sturm und Drang of article creation may have been too intimidating. There's another similar female editor out there that I mentored - User:Nteli78. In my experience, you can get such educated women started as editors but they tend not to follow through - I've trained many examples now. Perhaps they would benefit from explicit direction - the setting of tasks or goals - and so maybe tools like the SuggestBot might help?

Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, this page is probably not going to be helpful to you. It's dominated by people largely hostile to addressing the gender gap in any meaningful way, and the people actually interested in the aims of the "task force" have mostly been driven away. Nathan 19:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

dominated by people largely hostile to addressing the gender gap in any meaningful way Really? Still, if it ever was? people actually interested in the aims of the "task force" have mostly been driven away Ditto, although since the aims are a somewhat thin in detail ...

Like so much here, Nathan, your comments seem to be a bit hyperbolic and assumptive, sorely lacking in evidence. If we want to reduce the gap, we need to understand why it exists and we desperately need the input of the much larger number of women who contribute to Misplaced Pages but who thus far have shown no interest in this project. Otherwise, we're just a very small group of people wandering around randomly and not even remotely close to including a decent number of en-Misplaced Pages's women. The project is "campaigning" for a demographic that it doesn't represent and seems only vaguely to understand.

Andrew D. raises an interesting point re: his experience of women who are mentored but "tend not to follow through" as editors. I wonder if that retention issue is proportionately more serious among women than men? It sounds like another one for the survey that has been mentioned a few times, including in the section above. I've helped plenty of new Wikipedians out in my time, btw. That certainly includes some who self-identify as women, such as CaroleHenson, so it hurts when the randomness of commentary extends to accusations of misogyny as has happened to me in the past here. I've no idea why people like her are not involved with GGTF, although I'd be surprised if none of them know of it. I've also worked well with long-established contributors such as Orlady, Moonriddengirl, Voceditenore and Anna Frodesiak, all of whom seem largely to be absent from here. A survey, promoted through the centralised notifications system, might have a secondary effect of drawing people in. Is anyone capable of designing one? Would WMF assist in framing the questions? - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. You won't be filibustering me with vaguely reasonable-sounding but intentionally disruptive, obstructive and deceitful verbosity. I decline to engage with you or your cohort here and strongly suggest others do the same. Nathan 21:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no intent to filibuster. I've just seen this and, broadly speaking, it seems to be eminently appropriate. If you think that I am being "intentionally disruptive" or part of some "cohort" then take it to WP:AE rather than shout about it here. Money, mouth, is. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Listen up, women are telling their story now"

Interesting and moving article here by Rebecca Solnit about how 2014 was the year "women’s voices assumed an unprecedented power". SlimVirgin 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I have high hopes for women on Misplaced Pages in 2015. Lightbreather (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Great article ! Does anyone know if we have something like Women's voice in 2014 or Women in 2014 ? If we do, this surely should be added there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an op-ed, and one that is distinctly US-centric. There is unlikely to be an appropriate article and creating one might be point-y. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Although the article is US centric, and an op-ed, none of those things make it unusable. And it does say things from other parts of the world too. I think there are lots of article about "Women in X" where x is a country or discipline or field. We also have articles like "X in 2011" where x is a country etc. So, creating a new article is kosher IMO.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If that is your opinion then be bold. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel we may already have some appropriate article and someone might point it out. Even if not, I would like to wait for a day or two and hop to get some more opinions :-) This page is for collaboration after all.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is a good deal of material from the 2012 Delhi gang rape article - that's the one that caused the "boys will be boys" comment to go around the world. I added this to that article and I think that it's worth copying here. It is from the one-year anniversary section.

Observers agree that the victim's ordeal has brought a change to public conversations about women's issues, with men joining in the discussions as well. A young woman who had taken part in the protests at the time of the rape said a year later, "A welcome change is that the taboo on discussing rape and sexual violence has been broken. The protests brought debates and discussions to our homes." She also said that since the rape and protests the media is now providing coverage of sexual violence. However, she saw "absolutely no change in the rape culture and related brutality. The streets are not safe. Teasing and catcalling or worse are to be found everywhere. Sexual harassment in public places as well as inside the home is still rampant." She added, "I do acknowledge, however, that a year is too less to undo what patriarchy has done over centuries. It is too embedded in our homes, our institutions and in our laws. The police may be a little more receptive, but it is not out of a sense of duty but out of the fear of censure".

I also remember several other quotes from women that have long worked with woman-related issues saying that in all their days they had never seen anything like the attitude change re the willingness to discuss violence against women. It may be a bit of a struggle to come up with an article as far as focus goes, but I'm sure something can be figured out. Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Joshi, Mallica (15 December 2013). "'Law is impotent in the face of patriarchy'". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 31 December 2014.

Good time for the proposed article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a great idea for an article. OrangesRyellow, thanks for suggesting it.

It could (eventually) be a summary-style page with material on each of the issues we have articles on (such as YesAllWomen, 2014 Isla Vista killings, Gamergate, Jian Ghomeshi#Criminal charges and lawsuit, Bill Cosby#Sexual assault allegations and fallout), and earlier events that led us here (e.g. 2012 Delhi gang rape) with analysis in the lead and in later paragraphs about how 2014 was a watershed year for women. Women in 2014 would be a good working title. SlimVirgin 02:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses ! Today seems to be a good day for finding sources on google I am saving some of today's search page results because the results are likely to become diffuse in the coming days or weeks. Going through the results gives more ideas about what could be included. It seems 2014 has been both good and bad for women in many ways, in many parts of the world. I am likely to be away for some time. I think we have plentiful material, ideas, and an idea about basic structure, to start the article and you or someone else should probably go ahead. I am unfamiliar with many of the articles / events listed above, but will read them up and add my bit here and there as I can.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone gets this started, it would be a good idea to work on a draft in user space. If we want to nominate it for DYK, that has to happen within five days of it appearing in main space, so starting on a user page buys extra time. SlimVirgin 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I was inclined to starting it in the mainspace, but am having trouble coming up with a lead (providing a starting overview / introduction ). If someone could come up with a lead ( either as a userspace draft or mainspace ) it might be easier to work on from there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I may try to find words for a lead. I don't want to promise I'll do it, though, but I'll take a look. Or if someone else starts one, I'll be happy to help out. We could start it in someone's user space or at WT:GGTF/Women in 2014. SlimVirgin 02:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have started the draft in GGTF space, as suggested at WT:GGTF/Women in 2014 . Please take a look.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Transcluding it below for now, ( and hatting it ) so that everyone may find it easier to take a look. The aim is to get as much help as possible. Looks like it is going to be a major task noting all the things that need noting, and can only be done collaboratively.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@OrangesRyellow: That's a great start, thank you! SlimVirgin 04:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The transclusion seems to have made the toc disappear, so I'm removing it until I can see how to fix it. SlimVirgin 04:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the article could be beefed up, perhaps including negative events for women as well as positives, but the article could go into article space now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, as you created the stub, whenever you want to move it is fine by me. I don't know whether Women in 2014 or Women's rights in 2014 would be better. SlimVirgin 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Lucky me gets credit while you did almost 100% of the job. Not fair :-)The article is ready for mainspace, and you are more familiar with doing page moves. Both titles look fine to me. So, you can choose and go ahead -- please.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@OrangesRyellow and Smallbones: done. See Women's rights in 2014. SlimVirgin 05:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Can only say "WOW" !! I never knew such a fine article could be worked up in such a short time. I had lost my enthusiasm for editing last year, but it is returning just by watching you work up this article !!OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, OrangesRyellow. Don't underestimate your own role, by the way. You had the idea and you got it started. I probably wouldn't have done either. So well done for that.

I'm about to nominate it for DYK, by the way (in both our names), unless you'd like to do it. I was thinking of something like: "Did you know that commentators, including Rebecca Solnit, called 2014 a watershed year for women's rights?" SlimVirgin 16:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding idea. May I suggest including a picture in the DYK? Either the photo of Malala Yousafzai or Michelle Obama would likely work. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps Rebecca Solnit. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin. I would be glad to see it as a DYK and am happy to see you do it as I am yet to do a DYK, and would not know my way around there. And thanks again for including my name in it :-)OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Women's rights in 2014. Unfortunately I now have to review someone else's before it can go ahead (this is one of the reasons I decided last year not to do this again). :)

Smallbones, I've added the photo of Michelle Obama for now. SlimVirgin 17:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Michelle Obama made no sense in the context of the hook, so I've swapped it for Solnit. Thanks for cropping that, Smallbones. SlimVirgin 17:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the DYK image has to be in the article, so that won't work either. Perhaps we can leave it without an image. Re: reviewing another article, I was lucky to find an interesting one by Ruby2010 to review, so that worked out well. See her The Lady's Realm. SlimVirgin 18:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Women's rights in 2014 article, as it stands, is quite badly flawed. I've left various comments at Talk:Women's rights in 2014 and at the DYK nomination, although I've only scratched the surface regarding the problems. I'm trying to collaborate but am quite prepared to be bold about things if no-one addresses the obvious issues. Please will someone at least respond to the comments there. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

While all articles on WP could use additional eyes and be improved, I think it's POV of you to unilaterally declare it "badly flawed". Sitush, do you share the goals of the task force? Those goals are to increase the recruitment and retention of women editors, and also to increase Misplaced Pages coverage of topics/articles under-represented due to systemic bias, which occurs on Misplaced Pages because we have so few women editors. I recall you wrote that you desired to see this task force disbanded. . OrangesRyellos and SlimVirgin, thanks for doing the work to collect so many sources and put together this interesting article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks. The encouragement was certainly needed. Sitush not only wants the task force disbanded, but also expressed opposition to the article even before it was created. Please see his 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC) above within this section. It is obvious he has a malicious interest in this task force and that article. It is obvious he wants to gut the article. He has no credibility left among the eds here, or on that article. I would like it very much if Sitush would leave that article. I do not see his contributions as being constructive, and it is not as if he alone on Misplaced Pages can help improve that article. If there is something to be done with that article, there are lots of other eds on Misplaced Pages, and I am quite prepared to engage with any issues if other eds bring them up, and want to work constructively on that article. ( but not with Sitush or his cohorts ). Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, many thanks for the encouragement. SlimVirgin 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I share many of the same misgivings about this article as Sitush. I've never seen an article constructed almost entirely from op-eds. Many of the subjects in it should, and some do already, have their own articles but this article is just peoples' claims about the impact of these subjects when we have no idea what impact, if any, they are going to have. For instance, the idea of something being a watershed moment (or year in this case) can't be made in that moment. Such claims are the realm of academic retrospection usually years to decades after the fact when their actual impact can be verified. Capeo (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I do as well... IMO the "watershed" is nothing more than media hype. I am trying to keep my objections to myself because of the nature of this group, but it does seem like sort of a fluff piece. However, trying to be more positive, it may be a way to survey recent happenings... I am working on the sad state of abortion rights in 2014 - though again I'm sure that it is somewhere else. But perhaps nice to have a 2014 recap? Yes, I think so... Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

• "Sexism and violence against women may be getting attention, but some say the watershed moment is still to come" (audio), CBC, 6 November 2014.
• Charlie Gillis, "Is this a watershed in battle against sexual harassment?", Maclean's, 13 November 2014.
• Rebecca Solnit, "A Watershed Year For Feminism", Outlook, 19 November 2014.
• "The 20 Best Moments for Women in 2014", Cosmopolitan, 3 December 2014.
• Emily Tess Katz, "2014 Was A Bad Year For Women, But A Good Year For Feminism", The Huffington Post, 24 December 2014.
• Rebecca Solnit, "Listen up, women are telling their story now", The Guardian, 30 December 2014.
• Amanda Marcotte, "2014 Was a Great Year for Feminism. Is a Backlash Coming?", Slate, 30 December 2014.
• "The Guardian view on a year in feminism: 2014 was a watershed", Guardian editorial, 31 December 2014.

Women on the net are harassed, targeted more, but get less help. Lets make more effort to identify and heighten sensitivity to harassment and stalking of women on this pedia

A sampling of what women face, how it is a a serious assault, but are treated in an insensitive, ineffectual way by those who should help. Amanda Hess, Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC) This seems to be an influential and pivotal part of last year's discourse. Soraya Chemaly, "There’s No Comparing Male and Female Harassment Online", Time. I wanted to show a quote from this article here, but decided not to because every other sentence is also worth quoting.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, OrangesRyellow, they're both really interesting articles. SlimVirgin 14:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)