Talk:Feminism

Former good articleFeminism was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 19, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
May 6, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

    Why not women's rights?

    Might open the flood gates for hate here but it needs to be asked. What is SO WRONG with describing feminism in the intro for what it is: a movement for women's rights? Especially now, given the current political climate, why is this page still saying "movement for equality of the sexes"? Is gender equality/equity important? Of course! But historically and today, women are almost always the targets of sexism. TLDR; make feminism about women's rights again. We need it. FrozenIcicle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that feminism, by definition, encompasses more than just women's rights. Feminism is anything advocating for females. Now you can advocate for females in order to get move towards women's rights, but you can also be in it for equality of the sexes, since currently society is somewhat biased towards males. I am of the opinion that this was the result of neolithic behavior, where females were biologically optimized to give birth and men were biologically optimized to do what it wouldn't be practical for the females to do. Basically men worked in the fields while women stayed at home, it was a mutual agreement with plenty of equality, which made sense because of convenience. Eventually society changed, though, and the women didn't stop giving birth, so those white-collar jobs merely took the place of agriculture and males filled that position. By the time females were able to have a reasonable number of children without fear of them dying for no reason and could hire babysitters so that they could do other things, men had already been doing the other things of a while, and so people had grown to think that was the right way, even though it was merely effective for a time and now no longer was. It's not that men intentionally decided to form a "patriarchy" because they wanted to feel superior, at least not in all cases. It's just that the minor differences between men and women grew to larger differences in their role, and so people started to assume that because there were such large differences in role that it was because of something when it wasn't, and when those major differences in role shrank back to their objective size, people didn't think it was right. In the cases of those who tried to interfere with women's roles shrinking back, that is basic radicalization. But you didn't come here to hear about my thoughts. To continue my message, feminism could even encompass cases where females believe they are better than men. The article itself goes in to more detail on the subject, it is just using a superset of all the related topics to assemble them into the category that one typically assigns them to subconsciously, that way people will be able to find what they are looking for. 66.110.254.14 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am completely shocked that Wikipedia also repeats this nonsense about "equality" and I also don't understand why this IDEOLOGY isn't defined for what it is. Feminism probably fights a lot for men's rights, right (an implication of equality)? Equations often have only one side, right? Meanwhile, it has been absolutely clear from the media and public space for at least twenty years that feminism is more of (to paraphrase one of the pioneer) a radical idea that ONLY women are people. In short, I didn't know that the buzzword equality meant anything, now I know that it means to hate, ignore, blame and bash men. But such a true definition would probably not be politically correct. ~2026-45879-4 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the name "feminism" probably also suggests what kind of equality it's about... ~2026-45879-4 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    GA Reassessment

    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.

    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. When the article was first promoted to GA status, it was about 6200 words. It is now over 10,000 words, and WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out articles of that size. Is there any information in the article that can be spun out or stated with less words, to make this article more concise? The "Demographics" section seems to end at 2016. Are there more up-to-date statistics? Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: The article already makes abundant use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I am impressed that such a general article comes in at only 10,425 words, which is perfectly in accord with WP:TOOBIG. I have reviewed the article and tagged every instance of a missing citation. Since none of the statements are controversial, I expect editors will fill them in now that they have been flagged. Demotion seems unwarranted and nonproductive. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Patrick Welsh: I have added additional citation needed tags. The GA criteria states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". The numerous citation needed tags (including for entire paragraphs and quotes) and the "additional citations needed" orange banners will need to be resolved before I can recommend that this article keeps its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure why you would add those redundant tags, which make the article look messier that it is.
      As long as the unsupported content is uncontroversial, which it is, I will remain opposed.
      Placing an artificial deadline on editors to make these improvements seems counter-productive. Patrick (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:TOOBIG isn't a hard rule; note that it says "> 9,000 words – Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." (emphasis mine) I think a general article about feminism should be on the larger side, and 10,000ish words isn't an exhausting length. The citation issues aren't major and can be remedied easily, eventually. Yue🌙 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earth, one of the biggest scopes on Wikipedia, is under 9,000 words, so spinning off prose can be done. In my opinion, an article should be concise and spin out material into daughter articles instead of long, hard to load on slow internet connections, and have too much detail that distracts from the most important information. None of this negates the citation concerns which still exist in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    80% of the feminist theory content of the page could be removed, and the page would lose nothing in terms of detailing what exactly feminism is. After a talk page discussion, I once removed an entire subsection on "architectural feminism" that was based on a single article from a feminist journal. If you Googled the subject, all that it returned was the Wikipedia page and the article itself. This is what I'm talking about: this article has chronic issues with detailed descriptions of incredibly minor topics, in this case one so minor it couldn't even warrant its own article. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: The article has had serious length and POV problems for years now. The article received GA status in 2011, just before the advent of "4th wave" feminism, when feminism itself was significantly narrower in scope. The anachronistic issues that once plagued this article have mostly been addressed, but length issues are still present.
    Feminism today has become something personal for many people, which I think is the source of the POV and length issues. I honestly believe the only reason this article has maintained GA status for so long despite its glaring issues is that feminist editors see delisting it as an attack on feminism itself. Because of that, I doubt it will ever be delisted, even though it hasn't deserved GA status for nearly ten years. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the POV issues? Patrick (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it stands for Point Of View issues. Basically using too many pronouns like "I," or "you," or including opinions. 66.110.254.14 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right. Thanks! The policy is WP:NPOV.
    My inquiry was intended to be about specific violations in this article, which should be addressed if they are based on high-quality sources, but disregarded if they are one editor's problem with the topic. Patrick (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, we generally use "keep" or "delist" at GAR. It can be confusing to say "support" or "oppose" because it isn't clear if that means you're supporting or opposing the delisting or the keeping of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

    Despite connected movements, the feminist page doesn't include veganism anywhere. Therefore under 'Other modern feminisms', after the sub heading 'ecofeminism' I would suggest a section on Feminist Veganism. With the following text:

    Feminist veganism

    Feminist veganism makes a connection between the oppression of women and that of animals. Both live under the violent abuse of the patriarchy and capitalist means of production. The extensive use of resources for meat and other animal products is unnecessary and unethical considering the availability of other food products that have a less detrimental impact on the environment and human labor. While in a similar fashion women are exploited and the negative externalities of meat production are disproportionately severe for women.

    One leading activist and scholar of feminist animal rights is Carol J. Adams. Her premier work, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (1990), noted the relationship between feminism and meat consumption. Since its release, Adams has published several other works, including essays, books, and keynote addresses. In one of her speeches, "Why feminist-vegan now?" [1]—adapted from her original address at the "Minding Animals" conference in Newcastle, Australia (2009)—she said, "the idea that there was a connection between feminism and vegetarianism came to [her] in October 1974". Other authors have echoed Adams's ideas and expanded on them. Feminist scholar Angella Duvnjak wrote in "Joining the Dots: Some Reflections on Feminist-Vegan Political Practice and Choice" (2011) that she was met with opposition when she pointed out the connection between feminist and vegan ideals, even though the connection seemed more than obvious to her and other scholars.[2] Timzi (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: first paragraph is written extremely subjectively Aston305 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it's rewritten like this? It's my first entry, so trying to find the right 'neutral' tone.
    Feminist veganism makes a connection between the oppression of women and that of animals, connecting the violent abuse of both under the patriarchy and capitalist means of production. The extensive use of resources for meat and other animal products is, according to them, unnecessary considering the availability of other food products that have a less detrimental impact on the environment and human labor. While in a similar fashion people who follow the feminist veganism tradition say that both are exploited and the negative externalities of meat production are disproportionately severe for women. Timzi (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article discusses veganism, not feminism. Besides, just because the two ideologies have similar themes, it doesn't mean they are linked. Besides, I don't see any way the negative externalities of meat production are disproportionately severe for women. Franb01ser (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Adams CJ (August 2010). "Why feminist-vegan now?". Feminism & Psychology. 20 (3): 302–317. doi:10.1177/0959353510368038. S2CID 146751008.
    2. ^ Duvnjak A (1 May 2011). "Joining the dots: some reflections on feminist-Vegan political practice and choice". Outskirts: Feminisms Along the Edge. 24. Gale A257766055 ProQuest 885358265.

    GA Criteria?

    This talk page says The content of this article meets Wikipedia's Good Article Criteria. Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for "Good Articles". Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them. However, it's no longer GA. Should this section be removed from the talk page, or am I missing something? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially unreliable citation.

    Citation Feminism#cite note-misandrymyth-331q, Psychology of Women Quarterly, cites a study in which it 'debunks' criticisms of feminism. However this journal is described by Pubshub here: https://journalsandcongresses.pubshub.com/ph/journals/28924/details-psychology-of-women-quarterly and Sage Journals here: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/pwq as a feminist journal, both of which are trusted and reputable index and review services. In my mind, this represents a possible bias, especially as it is the only citation or specific item under the topic: Criticisms of feminism. It is also incorrectly cited, as the article states that it proves feminist views of men were no different to that of non-feminists. Within the actual paper however, it states that feminists (vs. nonfeminists) perceived men as more threatening. It also attempts to empirically analyse a woolly social ideology, and has an ideologically narrow set of study participants, due to it's narrow definition of feminism, compared to Wikipedia's fairly broad definition. It seems to be an essay on social sciences rather than a study, and an incorrectly cited one at that. I believe considering the extent and validity of content eligible for inclusion under this topic, the topic itself needs expanding on, and the citation removed or it's reference changed. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for any problems with linking or conventions. Franb01ser (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Feminism