| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender studies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gender studies. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gender studies at the Reference desk. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Points of interest related to Gender studies on Wikipedia: Outline – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
 | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 5 September 2022 for a period of one week. |
The title of this section comes across as if the article itself is trying to self-validate itself to the reader. It's like the article is assuming that the reader is doubting the importance or usefulness of this subject, so it decides to suddenly preempt them with an explanation of the various reasons and uses for this study. The section's presence seems reactionary, as if it were made in response to the recent increase in the awareness of this subject's existence and the negative attention that followed, where its relevance and usefulness was called into question. When framed like this, the entire section comes off as a bit preachy, which I feel compromises the neutrality of this article. The purpose of an article is to give the reader as much relevant information on a given topic as it can, not to sell the reader on said topic. That being said, it might not hurt to create a section dedicated to addressing criticism of this subject, some of the information in this section is transplanted into this new section. In the end, I feel that this would be a better way to convey this information as a counterpoint as opposed to simply bombarding the reader with all this information in an attempt to put to rest any doubts they have about this subject before they can even form. Framing it like this just comes across as manipulative and detracts from the article's neutrality. –Nahald (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be one of the most unreadable and opaque articles I've accessed on Wikipedia. So many statements are provided without any attempt to contextualize them. Look at this, from the opening section:
What in the FSM is this supposed to mean to a general reader with no background in the subject (the taget audience of Wikipedia)? It jumps out in the middle of an already-opaque section, seemingly out of nowhere. The whole article is like this. No, the answer is not to hyperlink all the terms. The answer is to consider the audience and rewrite this entire article from scratch. It reads like the scattered notes for a book- or paper-in-progress, not an encyclopaedia article trying to enlighten curious non-specialist readers. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. A good catch. Zezen (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article is somewhat up to date and the content is all relevant to the topic, but it needs more context so people can read the article without having to know anything about the topic beforehand. There seems to be some changes made in this regard but the one noted as well as others have stayed the same. Laurencraven (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why do you keep changing the capitalization on it? Should the capitalization of the other categories be changed to lower case? Pawn0 o (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the captialism of the thing is indeed irrelevant, but why delete it. The other category is capitalized, should it not be lower case as well? Sorry if im intruding, im very new here, and I want to understand what is going on. Pawn0 o (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
| WP:NOTFORUM |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Which one is the correct gender.Pawn0 o (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
Not forum, indeed, but quite constructive, for an IP.
Zezen (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NAVBOX, "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". The only mention of masculism in this article was an unsourced reference to men's studies; however, that article doesn't mention "masculism" either. Ergo, there's nothing to suggest these topics are "tightly related", so I've removed the {{masculism sidebar}} template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, some words you have links to are quite easy to understand or have a general idea what it is. Some other words would be great to add links like for example "Psychoanalytically".SanaSanaColitaDeRana (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new to editing articles and discussing them on the talk page. I was wondering why there aren't many mentions of non-Western or white contributors to the field of gender studies?Jpfrimpong (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"One issue that remains consistent throughout all provinces in different stages of development is women having a weak voice when it comes to decision-making. One of the reasons for this is the "growing trend to decentralization [which] has moved decision-making down to levels at which women's voice is often weakest and where even the women's civil society movement, which has been a powerful advocate at national level, struggles to organize and be heard""
Under Gender in Asia and Polynesia. Yes, there is a citation for the last quotation, but I feel that the "women having a weak voice when it comes to decision-making" is a pretty loaded claim to have with no examples, contextualizations, or background. Someone should add some sources or information here to bolster the claim, or remove the claim if irrelevant. Jemappellecaitlin (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions on this page reveal that this article was poorly constructed as it was filled with biased language and grammar. Aside from this, the article was also difficult to follow and filled with complicated language. Overall, the subject does appear to be sensitive. Eylenab (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many Women's Studies programs in the US have renamed themselves as "Gender Studies," to make it more clear that men's studies and queer studies are part of the field. Shouldn't this just be a section of the Women's Studies page?Women's studies?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela McVay (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article says:
Regarding gender, Simone de Beauvoir said: "One is not born a woman, one becomes one."[8] This view proposes that in gender studies, the term "gender" should be used to refer to the social and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity and not to the state of being male or female in its entirety.
The second sentence tells us that she had a view about the term "gender" in gender studies. But that can't be right. Gender studies didn't exist when Simone de Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex. And the point she was making wasn't about a term at all; it was about women—more precisely, about the figure that the human female takes on in society. Whatever she may have written about women, it proposes nothing about the usage of the term—even if it’s precisely the term we would use for her ideas today.
I'm guessing this was the intended meaning: in gender studies, the term gender gets used for the social and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. These constructions were what Simone de Beauvoir was getting at in The Second Sex, when she wrote about becoming a woman.
Yipe! That's me (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Criticisms" section, Debra Soh's opinion, which is presented in the book "The End of Gender", is mentioned:
Psychologist Debra W. Soh postulates that gender studies is composed of dubious scholarship, that it is an unscientific ideology, and that it causes needless disruption in the lives of children.[1]
The problem is that the publishing house that published the book is not scholarly, but popular. Thus the book did not go through the peer review process. Moreover, the opinion quoted in the article is more of a political statement that propagates the anti-gender movement's narrative of "gender ideology". I fear that the inclusion of this section creates a false balance. Wouldn't it be better to remove this statement? What do you think about it? –Unloose (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which article are you evaluating?[edit] Gender studies
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit] I chose to evaluate this article because it covers a very influential and broad topic. My preliminary impressions of it were that it covered the basic information but made some broad and unclear references to different theorist's ideas.
Evaluate the article[edit] The lead section gives a good overall introduction although it makes references to theorists who are not mentioned in the rest of the article. The article put a little too much weight on the importance of men's studies v.s. women's studies. Women being the group who have historically been oppressed by gender inequity and who have used gender studies as a discipline to focus on important issues for them which were overlooked by mainstream society, I think this imbalance in the article replicates the injustices the field of gender studies seeks to combat. There are a few sections, in relation to particular theorists specifically which are lacking citations. The article is well written, but the way it is broken up is a little confusing. The sub-sections seem to be randomly allocated to different topics which don't seem to be of parallel importance and scope to the topic. This makes the flow of the article a bit confusing. The article could benefit from some images which could provide visual context and interest. The talk page for this article seems to be productive for the part and focused on keeping the article consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Overall, I think the article does a decent job of encapsulating the topic but could use some reorganization and refocusing.Sophdev630 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
Which article are you evaluating?[edit] Gender studies
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit] I chose to evaluate this article because it covers a very influential and broad topic. My preliminary impressions of it were that it covered the basic information but made some broad and unclear references to different theorist's ideas.
Evaluate the article[edit] The lead section gives a good overall introduction although it makes references to theorists who are not mentioned in the rest of the article. The article put a little too much weight on the importance of men's studies v.s. women's studies. Women being the group who have historically been oppressed by gender inequity and who have used gender studies as a discipline to focus on important issues for them which were overlooked by mainstream society, I think this imbalance in the article replicates the injustices the field of gender studies seeks to combat. There are a few sections, in relation to particular theorists specifically which are lacking citations. The article is well written, but the way it is broken up is a little confusing. The sub-sections seem to be randomly allocated to different topics which don't seem to be of parallel importance and scope to the topic. This makes the flow of the article a bit confusing. The article could benefit from some images which could provide visual context and interest. The talk page for this article seems to be productive for the part and focused on keeping the article consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Overall, I think the article does a decent job of encapsulating the topic but could use some reorganization and refocusing.Sophdev630 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating tone - Does this article reflect a neutral tone or does it make biased claims?[edit] All sections of the wiki article use a neutral tone that covers everything from an informative perspective without any interference from external opinions and tones. There are no biased tones and all editors have done a great job of incorporating information neutrally. — 2603:8001:723F:4107:1925:330C:6D79:95A3 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejgrimm (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Ejgrimm (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is playing a big role in politics in current times. It is also tied with feminism and queer studies. I thought it was exactly what the name implied. It is about studying different genders and how it interacts and intersects with society.
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
After having a brief summary on what gender studies entails, the next part is a collection of different influences and ideas from different people who studied gender studies and had differing ideas of what it is. Each person had a bit where it explains what they believed gender studies is. More than half of the sources cited were created before 2015. Gender studies is ever evolving and what is widely accepted is changing so I think there needs to be more current papers in the citations. It is good that the people that they did mention in the wiki page also had hyperlinks to their own wiki pages which means the summary is taking ideologies and papers written by known and established experts in this field. There also seems to have a few unreliable or uncited sources throughout the summary.
Some portions/sections of the summary might have felt as if they were leaning towards a certain bias, but I think that is the nature of the topic too. It is a subject that intertwines with politics as mentioned so there is mention of the faults of some parties or countries and how they deal with their gender issues. It is noted that they did highlight how the governments around the world is handling gender in either positive, negative, or neutral light. They also added a criticism section that did show how others are criticizing gender studies. The summary did have some emphasis on the differences between women and men's studies.
On wikiprojects it is rated B class with two out of the three saying it is top-importance. Anuhea702 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources seem neutral after some checking and the overall language of this article remains unbiased. With my passover it looks pretty reputable. Allie08 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenjmo (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Vanessaamartinez (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation: Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations? Although this article mentions how gender studies affects places such as Russia and China, it fails to provide the effects it has on other marginalized populations such as Latin American countries which are historically underrepresented. Cloudynoir (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
