Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 12 December 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Discrimination [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Feminism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 10, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 19, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed June 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Feminism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Feminism at the Reference desk.

Points of interest related to Feminism on Misplaced Pages: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 61 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Disputed edit

This edit was made on August 6, 2010 . The edit deleted all information on the three stages of feminism and made dramatic and negative changes to the entire article without consensus. I request to restore most of the deleted information on the stages of feminism, the deleted pictures and the overall structure of the article. TheLuca (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It may have been part of a process by which material was moved to linked articles. We do that as articles get too big. I am not sure, does anyone remember? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But even if the information was moved to other articles, isn't a Misplaced Pages article entitled "feminism" supposed to at least mention proto-feminism, first-, second-, third-wave, and post-feminism? I just think that this edit made this article much less informative, more ambiguous and unclear. TheLuca (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

TheLuca the reason this was done was to reduce the article length in line with WP:LENGTH. The overall action was right. The fact that some aspect were moved / altered is an effect of WP:SUMMARY. This is the 'parent article' for all articles in category feminism. Not all the info can fit here so we summarize it and create sub articles.
While I do think we can work on and improve the history section here I must point out that a mass revert would not be all that helpful. Tweaking, expanding, adjusting and rewriting sections that are here would be. In my view we can all work towards an update of this page that is the best of both worlds--Cailil 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This article definitely mentions first-, second-, third-wave feminism already. How many feminists or historians of feminism use the term proto-feminism? Isn't Mary Wollenstoncraft and John Stewart Mill mentioned here also already? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cailil and Slrubenstein. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I proposed a mass revert. I did, however, propose a massive rewrite of the article and I think that the lead in particular, the history, societal impact, fascism, and reactions sections need extensive work. TheLuca (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

TheLuca, to say it was without consensus is false; see the edit summary on the diff you referred us to. The talk discussion it refers to is now archived but still available. You did propose a revert; you didn't just give an impression of it. Please try to be credible when you comment. I'm glad you're apparently listening to some of your colleagues.

Since you apparently intend to trash everything I do no matter how well justified and refuse to engage in two-way discussion with me, I'm going to stay out of editing this article for now. I don't know if I'll watch or when.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Such hyperbole, such melodrama, such violation of WP:AGF. You are mistaken. I don't indent to "trash everything." I do, however, intend to trash contributions that violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GEVAL, etc. Good day. TheLuca (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No hyperbole or melodrama. The assuming of good faith can be lost or reduced and has been. No objection to editing based on policy violations had they occurred, but discussions should be two-way in order to improve articles. When your objections are unspecified and I can't find a basis for your conclusory complaints (and some were conclusory, accusatory, unsupported, and wrong, as you seem to have agreed for some) they are clearly unjustified. I hope to get back to where AGF is apropos, as with most editors. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fortunate for me then that your edits have been disputed by other editors. Perhaps they are all wrong. Everything is possible. Please provide reliable sources which support your interpretations of the five books and you'll hear no objections from me if you decide to include them in the article. It's very simple. TheLuca (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Line 1, definition

I'm proposing a rewrite of the current lede line, in order to improve its sourcing. Here are some definitions of feminism in its broadest sense. More will follow in the coming days. Please note my references are in MHRA style and will need alteration before being added to the article per WP:CITE

“a set of theories about women’s oppression and a set of strategies for change”

“In its broadest interpretation feminism represents advocacy for women’s interests. ”

"theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes"

“the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes”

“doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women”

“organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interest”

Nancy Cott in The Grounding of Modern feminism dealt with the tension between Women's Liberation and Women's rights movements and the importance of both definitions (this is a severe reduction of her book I know), and most of these definitions carry a dual point: women's rights and equality of the sexes/women's liberation. I believe that in the broadest definition this should be reflected. I would also point out that LeGates definition is shared by Webster's dictionary and that that the Collins an OED dictionaries are very similar.--Cailil 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

well, forgive me indulging in a bit of OR, but none of these definitions quite gets at the meat of feminism. Feminism is more than just rights or interests or equality. You have to keep in mind that the feminist movement was an outgrowth of the civil rights movement, and shared its watered-down Marxist ideology (the identification as a 'class' of people subjugated and exploited by a different class of people). Much of Feminist theory, thus (even the non-Marxist varieties) is built around the vague notion of 'class equalization' to remove the exploitive elements of gendered societal dynamics. Some feminists interpreted this in terms of a merged (gender-neutral) class, some in terms of classes that were separate but lacked the exploitive power differential, but no feminists were satisfied with the simple benchmark-measure approach (equal pay, equal access, equal rights). It's the difference between 'being equal' and 'being treated like and equal' (the latter of which is still paternalistic) which is what sets feminism apart from women's rights more generally. --Ludwigs2 23:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there's a definition (but I'm damned if I can find it tonight) that goes something like "feminism campaigns for women's rights and end of male domination of society". Back in '09 we used to have

Feminism is an intellectual, philosophical and political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women. It involves various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference; that advocate equality for women; and that campaign for women's rights and interests.

I personally liked it then but now I think it's a bit long winded. Also I'd like to stick to something we can source. But I take your point on the wording of these quotes - will post more ASAP-Cailil 23:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also SLR's point above about gender difference (the value of female ways of knowing and being). I personally think this should bein paragraph 1 but not line 1, unless somebody can find a well sourced, reliable definition that manages to hit that as well as the historical definition simultaneously--Cailil 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Offhand - very ofhand- I like definition one. But I have to disagree ith Ludwigs2. Perhaps in the US Women's Liberation was an outgrowth of the Civil Rights Movement, but Women's Lib is not the same as feminism and the US is not the world. John S. Mill was a feminist and not a marxist, and Mary Wollstonecraft was long before the Civil Rights Movement. The introduction has to embrace their flavors of feminism as much as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinhan, and as much as bel hooks and Michel Barret and Juliet Mitchell and Judith Butler. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If a source is Webster's dictionary, a fuller citation is needed, because Webster's is no longer a protected trademark or brand and so quite a few dictionaries from different publishers are now called Webster's. OED would need an edition; the 2d is their latest in print and the Online edition includes the New, which is after the 2d. I don't generally use the Cambridge dictionary, but I assume it has edition numbering, too, which would need to be cited. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC) (Corrected by removing an extraneous space in "and" and italicized the titles: 06:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)) (Correction, in that my last edit was not an additional reply (my edit summary was wrong): 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

In Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics (2000), bell hooks argues that feminism has the goal to end all forms of institutionalized oppression, of which gender discrimination is only one. I think this definition illustrates feminism's continued connection to anti-racist and anti-heterosexist "movements." As I see it, feminist efforts to establish equal rights for LGBT people and minorities haven't been mentioned in the article which is an important thing to leave out. However, I'd be happy with definition 3, 4, and 5, too. TheLuca (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say "an important thing to leave out" do you mean an important thing that should not be left out, or an important thing best left out? Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

An important thing that should not be left out. TheLuca (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually TheLuca hooks' point is very much a Black feminist one. Originally not all feminists advocated class & race equality - indeed the whole argument of postcolonial feminism is that western feminism neglected the views and experience of women in colonized areas. Historically speaking the things that unify the different strands of feminism in different areas are women's rights and equality of the sexes.
Sub-movements of feminism (ie marxist feminism, postcolonial feminism, etc etc) have modified and/or expanded aims but I see no difference, in terms of WP:UNDUE, in giving one of those movements mention in line 1, to giving female supremacism a mention in line 1.
I do agree that it should be in the first 4 paragraphs though, along with mention of post-colonial and black feminism--Cailil 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

bel hooks view, as related to us by TheLuca, is not limited to black feminists, and I agree with TheLuca that it deserves a bigger place in this article. But the NPOV way is not to pick what we think is the best definition of feminism, or to synthesize our own generic definition, it is to include all significant views: From Mary Wollstonecraft to john Stuart Mill to Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem to bell hooks and Gloria Anzaldua. The introduction does not need a synthetic definition of feminism, it needs to introduce the article and if the article provides multiple views it has to introduce this fact about our article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I take your point SLR but we've had long running and recurring problems with line 1 for years because of undue material. My point here is that we should be able to find and source a broad definitional line for the article. I know the above are far from perfect, and I'd be happy to see something like TheLuca's (and Nick's) points in the 1st paragraph just not necessarily line one--Cailil 20:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason I like def. 1 is that it is most inclusive. But aside from my point abut the scope of feminism, my real point was methodological, that it is best to think of the lead as introducing the whole article rather than defining feminism. If everyone looked at it that way I think it would be easier to reach a satisfying compromise.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Right, yes I see what you mean. I'm happy to work that way. With that in mind a thought had occurred to me about the structure. Bear with me for a sec because this mind be a bit left of field but what if we were to harmonize the hierarchy of information in the article and in Template:Feminism so that there was a logical relationship between the content here, its lede paragraph and the 'map' to child articles?
The reason I bring it up is because if we are to rewrite the lede as you're suggesting (and which is the right way to do it) we'd need to examine what and how we are presenting info here. Just a thought--Cailil 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

New and Confused. Intro includes argumentation?????

It's my first visit to this page, so forgive me if I say anything redundant. As a 45 y/o woman 41 y/o feminist and activist, I never felt the need to visit the page to learn. But over the course of this year, it's come to my attention that (and correct me if I'm wrong) that for years feminism has been coopted by the LGBT movement (personally I have issues with the term LGBT because as a bi I've never heard of any stiffling of rights for bis, but that's just me). I'm all for equal rights for all, but in my book that's neither here or there when I question myself on feminism. So when I read the opening paragraph and see the last line stating that "some argue" that feminism is not about women but about gender freedom for all, I have to stop and scream WTF???????

I realise there are a lot of intellectuals here who've done a lot of reading on the matter and have plenty of "sources" to argue either way. But my understanding of[REDACTED] is that it's not here to represent "all" opinions, but the concensus view, the definition of least surprise for a majority of readers.

As it stands, the intro reads like it was written by 10 hands having an argument. It's unreadable and ridiculous. But heck, who knows, maybe I'm not a feminist after all?? Who'd a thunk after so many years of fighting religious and patriarchal subjugation??--Tallard (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, i think the article needs to have more about abortion, as it seems to be the biggest litimus test many are holding out to define whether or not a person is accepted as a feminist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.154.199 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your mistake is to think that introductions or articles should provide a "consensus view." That is simply not the case. NPOV demands we include all significant views. This article does a decent job doing just that. The sentence you refer to is accurate. So your problem seems to be that you find it a "surprise." Well, don't we come to books and articles hoping to be surprised, hoping we will learn something new? Otherwise, why bother reading anything? The lead says "some people" hold this view. And you seem to think that if "some people" hold that view, people who hold other views are not feminists. How strange. To think that all people must think alike. I did not know feminists are battling it out to decide which one definition of feminism will over-rule all other definitions. In the meantime, at Misplaced Pages, we try to provide majority and minority views without taking any side or insisting that one view is the truth or that our article can tell any feminist what to believe or what not to believe. Misplaced Pages is just not about that. If you are looking for some ministry of propaganda, you came to the wrong place. You seem to want to make an argument, argue that your view is the only view. We make no arguments, we just describe the different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased POV

"Nazi Germany and the contemporary fascist states illustrate the disastrous consequences for society of a state ideology that, in glorifying traditional images of women, becomes anti-feminist"

Who is to say that these consequences are objectively disastrous? Sounds like pro-feminist bias to me. --123.3.186.252 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus on Misplaced Pages is that fascism has disastrous consequences by any objective standards (even those of Objectivists). You are unlikely to overturn that consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Spain was a Fascist state for decades under Franco. Many still there would dispute the statement "fascism has disastrous consequences" whether you agree with them or not. It could be argued that Hitlers actions were the result of megalomania and not Fascism. 142.13.22.241 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Men's reactions

Regardless of your views of MRA's Michael Floods opinions on them are massive POV

"..and anti-feminist men's rights activists who "have ridden the wave of right-wing backlashes against “political correctness” and efforts at social justice"

Either this is reworded else I will remove it. Also this section has excessive emphasis on male feminist "scholars" ie Flood, Kimmel etc. They are self declared feminists not a reaction to it. Zimbazumba (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course Flood's views are his "point of view." Misplaced Pages articles must have a neutral point of view, but we do not expect our sources to have a neutral point of view. In fact, we accomplish NPOV by providing all significant views. In other words, we provide multiple points of view. If we removed Flood, we would be violating NPOV. Now, if you think there are significant views that are not yet represented in the article, just tell us what views and whose they are, and how significant are they? NPOV requires us to distinguish between mainstream, majority, minority and fringe views. But even minority views should be included, as long as they are not given undue weight. Also, Flood's view is clearly identified as his viw, and not as "the truth." We aren't here to debate the truth, we are here to present an account of all significant views, even one's we do not agree with. Have you even read our policy?Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That statement is presented as a statement of reasonable truth supported by references, ie that " anti-feminist men's rights activists who "have ridden the wave of right-wing backlashes against “political correctness” and efforts at social justice " to a large degree is correct with 2 objective references that most would agree with to support that assertion. That's the way references work. If you wish them them work the way you suggest then I could flood this article with anything I pleased. There is no indication in the main text that that statement is a POV. Further more the referenced 'Paper' is a polemic opinion piece with vast swathes of text that have no substantiation, including the quoted phrase in this Wiki entry. I claim this reference does not pass Wiki guidelines. I understand the concept of balance, this is abuse of that idea. Zimbazumba (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How about toning down the rhetoric Zimbazumba? People's opinion about what constitues scholarship is not what this project relies upon - we have a policies for that WP:RS and WP:DUE. And the section does not assert these opinions as fact but as reactions by men. There are two references that you're contesting. One is published in a academic collection (and you can see how well cited that essay is by using google scholar ) the other is published by an academic webiste (XYonline) and by an expert in the field (Flood). So, on what grounds (ie what part of WP:V) are you contesting either source? Please explain so we can understand--Cailil 15:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Firsltly he "two" references are in fact to the same work. I don't think I am being picky here concerning its content, read it. Secondly XYonline is basically a blog/forum not an "academic website" (new word to me). Thirdly being an "expert" does not give you license to have patently absurd writings given credence. I understand the the idea of balance and am not averse to contrary opinions being added, including those of Flood. Atm I feel these opinions are being given undue prominence in this section. My sense is that if I was to add venomous counter opinions with similar prominence to other sections on this page from MRA writers, (some of who have qualifications and academic credentials exceeding those of Flood), there would be uproar. I am genuinely trying to achieve balance here, work with me. I will propose a rewording of this section. 142.13.22.241 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This section is a farce. Flood and Kimmel are as much radical feminists as they are men (I believe "mangina" is the label most frequently given to them by men who are not pro-feminist), which is completely beside the point that the section itself is junk. "Reaction from men?" How on earth can anyone even begin to summarize the reactions of about half the world? Reactions from masculists, mens or fathers rights activists, the men's rights movement maybe, but "reactions from men?" That's just ridiculous. Men are not an identity group that plays Identity politics, they have no spokesperson, no matter how much some groups would like to pigeon-hole all men as having some universal opinion or pre-dispositions. There is no WP:RS that can meet the threshold necessary to speak to men's overall reaction to feminism. Building upon the already ridiculous premise of the section, since it only quotes Kimmel and Flood shouldn't it be merged with the "Pro-feminism" section? Or do pro-feminists also get to speak to "men's reactions" as well? How about a "Women's reaction" section? Or are we trying to pretend that feminism is the true voice for all women, or all women are feminists (or at least should be so we'll exclude the ones who aren't?)-Cybermud (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti feminism

This section contains mostly a list of people who self describe and are described by many as Equity Feminists, (see Wiki entry for Equity and gender feminism). This section should be moved to the main section under the heading Equity Feminism. Equity feminism whether you agree with it or not is a significant school of feminism, dating back to Fawcett, Bentham and Wollstonecraft. Otherwise do we not not have a POV fork? 142.13.22.241 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Further more is not the term "Anti feminism" a pejorative? Do such groups self identify as such as their primary reason for existence? We don't refer to Republicans as "anti-Democrats" or Democrats as "anti-Republicans"? Zimbazumba (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To be against something is hardly pejorative. In order to comply with NPOV, we must represent multiple views, ncluding opposing views. Ar eyou saying no one is opposed to feminism? If anyone is opposed to feminism, they are by definition anti-feminism. maybe as you suggest they do not exist, but if they do, surely their views should be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious, have you actually read that entry? Are you suggesting its NPOV? There is a strong suggestion through undue prominence of the stated opinion that that list of women are against women's equality. I'd like to see someone try arguing that with Camille Paglia or many others on that list. Undue prominence is also being given to this opinion through the very existence of the section. I think this section is agenda driven and an attack by one feminist group on another. The meaning of a word is primary defined by its context not its dictionary definition, again as I said before we do not refer to Republicans as "anti-Democrats". There is no such section at Republican_Party_(United_States) although I bet I could find a raft people who held that opinion or worse. And I repeat do we not have a POV fork because of Equity and gender feminism? The people on this list ARE feminists, ie equity feminists, but not to the liking of some. I'd appreciate these points being addressed. Zimbazumba (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am serious. Now, let's try to pinpoint why exactly ou asked me this qustion.

• To be against something is hardly pejorative. Do you disagree?
• In order to comply with NPOV, we must represent multiple views, ncluding opposing views. Do you disagree?
• Are you saying no one is opposed to feminism?
• Maybe as you suggest they do not exist, but if they do, surely their views should be included. Do you disagree? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Patai talks a lot about the ideological policing in women's studies courses (ie the "right" feminism.) Suppose it's not all that surprising that she is only mentioned in the section in anti-feminism despite always identifying herself as a feminist. I also take serious issue with the statement that "Antifeminism is the opposition to women's equality." This is a complete straw man. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the critiques of women's studies and feminism is NOT opposition to women's equality. It's pretty shameful that WP makes such a silly claim in an article as prominent and important as this one... yet, somehow, completely unsurprising.--Cybermud (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• Top-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• B-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists