Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop

The discussions which led to this workshop can be found here. This workshop is now concluded and the new Scope Guidelines have been implemented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History. See Members' final comments below.

Problems with the current situation

Some preliminary thoughts on the scope section as it is currently written and the ensuing problems:

• The main page is too vague about what is in the scope of this project. On the one hand it implies in several places that historical focus is key and what makes this project "different" from related projects. On the other hand it lists some "categories of interest" to the project which are potenially vast, e.g. Category:Women by occupation, Category:Alumni of women's universities and colleges and contain many biographies which are not of historical (or even historic) figures. This in turn has led to some editors going even beyond these to tagging virtually every female biography and every article even tangentially related to or mentioning women.
• Because of the relative inexperience of some of the founding members with Wikipedia in general and WikiProjects in particular, the Goals and Scope section reflects and has encouraged a problematic conflation between the content of a Portal and the scope of a Project. They are not the same thing.
  • Portals are primarily to interest readers, and offer a wide range of the best material that Wikipedia has to offer on the principal subject and closely related subjects. Here's an example... Zelda Fitzgerald and Diane Keaton appear in Portal:Feminism because their life stories may be of interest to readers interested in feminist issues. But neither of them is bannered by WikiProject Feminism itself.
  • Projects are for organizing editors and their work. What constitutes "their work" is defined solely by a consensus of the project members themselves in terms of what the project's priorities are, the expertise of its members, and setting realistic goals. It is not defined by categories, "key words", etc. or what anyone else thinks.
• Categories are for readers. They help them to find and navigate sets of related articles and topics.
• The open invitation to banner pages without firm guidance has led to several problems. Talk page banners are primarily to help projects organize their work, but also to provide a link for outside editors who may have a query about the article. For example, they may be looking for editors with expertise and access to sources on that subject, or need advice on formatting, etc. (Many WikiProjects have tailor-made style and format guidelines). It is a misuse of banners to use them as a method of categorizing an article's subject or pointing readers to related subjects. Such links and categories go in the article itself. In my view a very significant proportion of the bannering has been a misuse. This has led to overwhelming a still small and new project, diluting its focus, and in some cases, making it look a little silly.

– Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion points

Below I've listed some specific discussion points to break the task of redrafting the scope section into manageable chunks. Please add your opinions/suggestions under the relevant heading. If you have another category of article that you feel should be included or discussion, please add it below with a Level 2 heading. General points to consider which are applicable to all sections:

• We're talking about the scope of a WikiProject, not the scope of a topic or the scope of particular categories. Apart from the large umbrella projects like WikiProject Biography or WikiProject United States (which have multiple sub-projects, task forces and working groups), broadly construed topic areas and/or large categories are not coextensive with the scope of many WikiProjects, including some of the most active and productive projects.
• Given the size of its membership, member's time commitments, and members' levels of expertise both in the area and on Wikipedia in general, is the Women's History Project the one best equipped and prepared to actively maintain the articles?
• Does the Women's History Project have something significant to contribute to the articles?
• Would the Women's History Project be a valuable resource for outside editors with questions about the articles?
• See also the relevant guidelines from the WikiProject Council. How might these affect the decision of whether or not to banner an article (or groups of articles) with WikiProject Women's History?

Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Core to the project's scope

What are the types of articles which are core to the project's scope? Are there any criteria we could apply in general to explain their designation as such?

Taxonomy

It might be helpful if we establish some clarity on the type and scope of women's history in order to help with these questions you pose. Here's a few sites that have been working on this already and have some examples of ways we can separate out the articles by subject or typology headings:

• U.S. National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/research/alic/reference/womens-history.html
• Association of College and Research Libraries (of the ALA), Women and Gender Studies Section
  

Core Books: ACRLWSS

Subject Index for Women's Studies in Digital Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/~mbarrett/WSinDigitalArchives/SubjectIndex.htm

• H-Women: http://www.h-net.org/~women/bibs

Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these, Randolph. Could we make some comments on how we see this material guiding our discussion of scope? First, would it be fair to clarify that, for instance, the site H-Women includes headings for topics such as "Feminism" and "Gender Issues and Relations" that might take us into other project areas, whereas for women's history we would be looking at "General History"? The site on Women's Studies includes material that might have to do more with sociology and other disciplines that focus on contemporary women (because that is the nature of Women's Studies compared to Women's History) rather than with history per se, but that page also has a "social history" heading and plenty of other history-oriented material. And so on. Second, none of these resources as far as I can see gives attention to contemporary pop culture to an extent that would justify the relative proportion of WH banners that have been placed on pop stars and TV actresses. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Methodology

For our purposes, I think it's just as important to determine what types of history we're talking about as it is distinguishing historically relevant women. History is an expansive field, even with the qualifier "women"! The National Women's History Project has this quote on it's website: "Each time a girl opens a book and reads a womanless history, she learns she is worth less." (Myra Pollack Sadker)

I think that could give an idea of how to decide whether an article about a given woman should be included: I would ask, does this article fill in a hole in the historical record? Basically, I think historical methodology is important to consider in determining the scope of the project. Chenoeh (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing more of your thinking on this, especially the types of history you have in mind. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Purpose and Scope

Women have been systematically written out of history. (Can I make this statement without having to cite sources? And do we agree that it's true?)

Wikipedia provides a great opportunity for editors to find missing information about women's role in history and fill in the gaps. This includes not only individual articles about women, but when relevant information about women is missing from existing articles, the goal of this project should be to address this. Often, it's simply an oversight on the part of editors who focus on their area of interest, which may or may not include the role of women.

As a group, can we determine that it's important to tell the entire story of history, including the women's perspective? If so, I would recommend identifying historical articles where women are obviously missing and tagging them with the Women's History banner and somehow diverting them into an "unfinished" category. This would alert the group that the article needs to be expanded. I'm not saying that every article needs to have the role of women included, but if there are obvious missing pieces, they can be identified and tagged. USchick (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Predictably, the lengthy and well-developed article on American Old West has only one paragraph on women, and yes, you guessed it, it's on prostitutes. (One passing mention of Annie Oakley.) There's notice taken at one point of the passing of a male-dominated society, without any explanation of how and why "non-males" materialized. Is this the kind of thing you mean? This seemed to be one of the stated goals of the project at its inception, and my concern has been that this is getting lost among all the contemporary pop culture. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• USchick and Cynwolfe make what I think is a key point, and something that got lost in the mass tagging of virtually every article conceivably related to women from their bathing suits to sit coms. I would argue that the core areas this project should be working on are precisely those articles dealing with 'histories', like American Old West, which currently don't mention women in any significant way and should. Voceditenore (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• These type of articles with little or no mention would be great as a collaboration project. I like the idea of an unfinished category to alert the project members to potential development articles. --Tbennert (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I like that category too. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would just like to check in to say that this was one of my big worries about the project - that while fleshing out and adding pages focusing on women is very important, women's history should be integrated in more general articles as well rather than off to the side as a "special" category. My semester is over so I should be able to check in on Wikipedia more often than I have been. I would be really interested in working on this kind of thing. Gwytherinn (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. In the Scope draft, I tried to incorporate this under History criteria. See it if covers this adequately. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cynwolfe, your addendum looks great! The potential of this part of the project is pretty exciting to me. Gwytherinn (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Biographies

In general, what types of biographies, if any, should be in the project's scope?

Living subjects

These have proved particularly problematic. Are most (or even all) of them best left unbannered by WH and under the care of their current projects? If some biographies of living people are to be included, what are the suggested criteria?

• Exclude all. This has caused the most contention within the group and about the group. In addition the encylopedia already has too strong of a leaning toward the 1900's. These articles are in general more heavily watched and developed. Our energies and focus can be spent elsewhere. --Tbennert (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• The Women In Technology Task Force has had a relatively small number of biographies (<100) to manage, so this hasn't been a major issue. Early on, a consensus emerged that living women whose contributions were "historical" in nature (as evidenced by major awards, discoveries, professional society honors) should be bannered with both the Women's History Project banner and the Category:Women in technology tag, while living women who had made a solid contribution to technology that was "notable" but not yet "historical" in nature should have only the Category:Women in technology tag. When in doubt, I lean toward including the banner, as it is my belief that women's contributions in technological fields have been historically overlooked and marginalized.Tjepsen (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Include. Anyway they seem to be covered by the real sources which Cynwolfe was asking for. Consider for example the following entries from "Chronology of women's history" (1994) by Kirstin Olsen:
  • 1978 "Liza Minelli wins her third Tony Award for The Act"
  • 1978- "Kay Gardner founds the New England Women's Symphony"
  • 1978 - "English director Tina Packer cofounds Shakespear & Company, a group that performs..."
  • 1978 - "Filmgoers can see U.S. singer Diana Ross (b. 1944) in the Wiz, Australian singer Olivia Newton John playing a sweet and proper high school student in love with a greaser in the film musical Grease, Maureen Stapleton and Diane Keaton in Interiors, and Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullman in Autumn Sonata. Bergman receives an Oscar nomination, but Jane Fonda wins..."
  • 1978 - "June. East German runner Ulrike Bruns sets a world record in the 1,000 meters."Dimadick (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed suggest that we banner BLPs only if reliable sources (as defined at WP:RS) could be found to support their inclusion as an appropriate subject of women' history — if we as a project decide to include BLPs. But the presence of pop artists in this one chronology doesn't justify the inclusion of all other women who are also pop stars. I also have reservations about inclusion based on a single source. I like Tjepsen's distinction, but wonder whether it provides enough guidance to new editors. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I offered an example on whether BLPs are a valid subject in women's history. Why do you only point to pop artist articles? Dimadick (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the bannering of contemporary entertainers (both from pop music and TV) has brought the most complaints to this project and raised the question of which BLPs, if any, should be included. Women's sports as a topic has already been set aside pending the formation of a project devoted to that. Although a chronology like the one you cite is a good place to look, I don't want to base our criteria for inclusion on one source alone. I agree with Voceditenore in the following comment about excluding figures who haven't received significant discussion from the perspective of history. My somewhat wacky proposal is that we set a criterion of year of birth coupled with RS in the field of women's history if we want to include some BLPs such as Margaret Thatcher, Gloria Steinem, Elizabeth II, and so on. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I personally don't think the kind of simple list/chronology presented above constitutes significant historical coverage of the type some of the contributors here are talking about. On a more general level, I'm in favour of excluding BLPs as the default, with special cases having to be made for an inclusion. The bios of any living person remotely significant are looked after by multiple projects already. This is not about whether they may be of interest to people interested in Women's History. It's about what this project and its members feel they should focus their efforts and resources on. There's nothing to stop us adding these sorts of bios (provided they are of sufficient quality) to a future Women's History Portal. See my comments at the top of this page for the example of the Feminism Portal and more about the difference between the scope of a WikiProject and the all-encompassiing scope of a topic. They are not the same thing. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am somewhat sensitive to the issue of using year of birth as a criterion for inclusion of biographies of living persons in Women's History Project, since, in the field of technology, the introduction of computers and the internet, both certainly events of historic consequence, have taken place in a relatively short time period, mostly since 1950. Bill Gates and Vinton Cerf are certainly historic figures, but so are Thelma Estrin and Sally Floyd (computer scientist). An event does not have to take place in the distant past in order to be "historic." I don't think that making the determination of whether or not a person has made a historic contribution has to be all that difficult; just apply a formulation like "This person (name) did (act) in (date) which changed the world in the following way: (change)." No identifiable change, no history.Tjepsen (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this, as it clarifies my thinking. Or rather, it helps me know what I'm conflicted about. To amplify a comment I made elsewhere on this page, the trouble with excluding current events (or all living women) is that in some cases these form a natural continuum with topics that are clearly within our sphere of interest. For example, the article Women in Islam incorporates a historical perspective throughout. If we were so fortunate as to have a project member knowledgable about this topic, or women in the Arabic world or Iran, I would want the project to offer active support, whether such a person was contributing content that was strictly historical (Early social changes under Islam#Women's rights) or on the role of women in the so-called "Arab spring", which might benefit from a historical perspective. For biographies, is it possible to lay out tiered criteria that become more restrictive the closer to the present they are? Just as a starting point for discussion:

• The biography of a woman born before 1900 is generally within the scope of this project.
• The biography of a woman born between 1900 and 1950 is within the scope of this project if reliable sources confirm her notability as a historical figure, or discuss her life or career in the context of women's history.
• The biography of a woman born after 1950 may be included within the scope of this project if she has exceptional and verifiable historic significance. "Exceptional significance" should be demonstrated by a clear and reliably sourced statement of what the person did or achieved that made a lasting contribution to the world. Spheres of notable activity include politics or society, law, an art form, the military, labor, education, health, commerce or consumer protection, sports, or science and technology. Neither fame nor the winning of an award is considered sufficient evidence of a lasting contribution. An invention is a lasting contribution; a famous haircut is not.
• The biography of a man may be included within the scope of this project under the same guidelines if a major aspect of his notability is based on his contributions to women's history.

Note: The exclusion of winning awards as a test of historic significance may raise some eyebrows. This is intended to exclude entertainers who may've won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress because members of the Academy thought her nude scene was hot. Nobel laureates, by contrast, win their prizes precisely because they've made lasting contributions. Breaking a barrier to women's participation in sports is a lasting contribution; winning a gold medal is a personal achievement that in and of itself causes no necessary change beyond the individual's life. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be completely satisfied with Cynwolfe's bullet list and I believe this would answer the questions for both Living and Deceased biographies. My main reason for being extreme with exclude all was all the gray muck we were ending up with. To jump ahead to process, even if we are not quite at acceptance, would we make a page in the Table of Contents for discussion of the possible includes, or just leave these to the talk page? Also would we leave a note on the talk page of the article to indicate the biography was discussed on X date and deemed to be in scope? Just wondering so we don't end up with a mess we weren't anticipating again. --Tbennert (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in very much in favour of Cynwolfe's bulletted list as well. I would add to the penultimate bullet point "Neither fame nor the winning of an award nor setting a particular record is considered sufficient evidence of a lasting contribution." Also agree re leaving a note on a article's talk page when an "exceptional" inclusion has been made, but would suggest that discussion re the inclusion take place on the main Project talk page not on a separate page. On the whole, talk page diffusion is not a good thing and a permalink can always be added to the article's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start a subsection immediately following, then, for the specific purpose of drafting tiered criteria for biographies. 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for including biographies

Here is an early draft of possible criteria for the inclusion of biographies within the Women's History Project. Please comment on how the wording can be improved, what specific examples should be added/deleted, or any other way the criteria can be refined. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• The biography of a woman born before 1900 is generally within the scope of this project.
• The biography of a woman born between 1900 and 1950 is within the scope of this project if reliable sources confirm her notability as a historical figure, or discuss her life or career in the context of women's history.
• The biography of a woman born after 1950 may be included only if she has exceptional and verifiable historic significance. Spheres of notable activity include politics or society, law, an art form, the military, labor, education, health, commerce or consumer protection, sports, or science and technology. "Exceptional significance" should be demonstrated by a clear and reliably sourced statement of what the person did or achieved that made a lasting contribution to the world.
  • A "lasting contribution" is not fame; the winning of an award; statistical popularity (such as sales); or record-setting, unless a "first" results in a societal or cultural change. Points to consider:
    • An invention is considered a lasting contribution; a famous haircut is not.
    • Breaking a barrier to women's participation in sports is a lasting contribution; winning a gold medal is a personal achievement that in and of itself causes no necessary change beyond the individual's life.
    • Winning an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress is not a lasting achievement, nor is winning a Nobel Prize; however, the kind of work for which a Nobel Prize is won by definition represents a major advance in the field, and qualifies the laureate for inclusion.
• The biography of a man may be included within the scope of this project under the same guidelines if his contribution to women's history is a major aspect of his notability.

---

Comments

• Agree with everything written. Maybe add something to the effect "If unclear if a biography is in scope please discuss at WikiProject Women's History talk page (an actual link)" Not sure if this is assumed. --Tbennert (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It may be that when the scope guidelines are ready to post to the project page, we'll see where to place a blanket note ("when in doubt, discuss") that sounds both welcoming and yet clear that project members have a coherent vision. I'm also wondering whether it would be beneficial once we have our biographical criteria to post at the talk page of the Biography project, letting them know they can remove the banner from any article that obviously falls outside our scope, or point out troublesome cases to us. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree likewise. Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, generally. I'm not sure every biography of a woman born before 1900 is historically noteworthy, but then again people probably don't waste time writing and researching articles on people of little note from that far back. They only do that for pop/contemporary entertainers. So even though I don't like to throw blanket inclusion over all pre-1900 biographies, there probably aren't many that would fail the criteria anyway. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You're right. Theoretically, the biography of a woman born before 1900 might meet general notability requirements, and not really be a useful article for this project either to maintain or to serve as a resource for those working on it. I haven't been able to think of any criteria for exclusion, though. In my main subject area, for instance, I can't think of any way to exclude an ancient Roman woman who managed to survive in the historical record and pass WP:BIO. Or take this charmingly non-important bio, which I happened to catch sight of when it was nominated for a DYK. I may depart slightly from Voceditenore's self-control in this, in that the more I think about it, the more I think all women born before 1900 "deserve" the banner. Vanishingly minor figures such as a pair of Belgian sisters for whom I wrote little starter pieces (Virginie and Louise Bovie) to me are sometimes more illuminating about what it was like for a greater number of women than looking at exceptional figures such as Mary Shelley. So while I see your point, I don't see the inclusion of this category of women as "diluting the brand" in the same way that TV actresses do. This is not a matter of intellectual snobbery; it's just about "history," or at least how I see it from our discussion as meaning to project members. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That's funny, the "first officially recorded dumb blonde". There's always a surprise waiting somewhere in the study of history. But, I see your point. I'd rather include all the pre-1900 biographies, than even a fraction of the multitudes of stub-quality articles on 2nd-rate pop stars and B-list actresses. And less than half of the 1st rate/A-list deserve to be included. But we must remember, history is dynamic. It's always in motion. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I think at the moment we probably should include all pre-1900 bios. When I wrote below "Are all deceased women on Wikipedia (literally thousands) automatically under the scope of this project, or should they have also have some suggested criteria for inclusion? Are some of these best left to their primary projects to look after?, I was just posing a question to get the discussion going. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, I like this. 76.172.237.240 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards
• So, to see if I'm on board, and kill two birds with one stone, let me throw out a couple of BLP articles I think worthy of including in the project: Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson, the two women that were captured and held as POWs early in the Iraq War. I believe they are the first two American servicewomen to be held as POWs. They're still alive, but they "broke a barrier", at least in their own country (the US), so I suppose the significance in the context of women's history could be debated. Are they tag-able under the proposed guidelines? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• I've been thinking about this, still like this set of guidelines, and would only like to raise the issue of infamy. Women's history certainly includes the women who were anti-suffrage (and other good ideas), who were criminals, who were mean, misguided and just plain awful. I wonder if there's a way to be clear that "contributions" and "significance" don't have to be positive (by whatever standard might be applied) for a subject to fall under the project's purview.Penny Richards (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards
  • Penny, would this be specifically a question about women born after 1950? Those are the only ones who have the "lasting contribution" requirement. Bonnie Parker, for instance, as an infamous woman born between 1900 and 1950, only needs to have "notability as a historical figure." Phyllis Schafly, born between 1900 and 1950, would fall within the scope of this project in that her life and career have been discussed in the context of women's history, albeit as an obstacle to what I might call progress. Angela Merkel was born after 1950 and qualifies, I'd think, not simply because she's the first woman to be chancellor of Germany, but because of her political achievements in her various positions of leadership. You'll have to help me come up with an example of a woman born after 1950 who's had a lasting impact (as a word less positive than "contribution") for infamous reasons. The female equivalent of Bernie Madoff (Bernadette Madoff?). In general, the bar is set higher for those born after 1950 to keep the emphasis on historical perspective, rather than current events or contemporary pop culture. As for Lynch and Johnson, I'd say that's a good example of "when in doubt, discuss." Cynwolfe (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh I see, yeah. That makes sense. I'm just wanting to be certain that the infamous women (and organizations) of any era don't get left off. Penny Richards (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards
      • I agree, but I think the "negative impact" people don't usually get notability unless they're leaders. But after thinking about it, I tagged and assessed Tokuhime, a woman of the 16th century who unjustly accused her mother-in-law of conspiring against her (Tokuhime's) father. The mother-in-law was arrested and eventually executed; her son (Tokuhime's husband) was also arrested and executed. Tokuhime's plan, which was only to rattle her mother-in-law, sort of backfired, but the whole episode strengthened the military alliance of her father and her father-in-law. Now that's some history! Boneyard90 (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Tokuhime may be included because she was born before 1900, period. No further justification needed. The criteria for including women born after 1950 are far more stringent in order to keep our focus on historical perspectives instead of current events or contemporary pop culture. Of course this is all up for discussion, but that's been the thinking. The two main criteria for organizations are that they were formed for or by women, and that they were formed before 1950, the year that's been chosen as the arbitrary cutoff in general. As presently proposed, the only organizations formed after 1950 that we would direct our efforts toward would be any that are devoted specifically to women's history, for instance an academic association for the study and promotion of women's history. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Roger. Understood. As per the direction of discussion, I was trying to provide an example of a woman of, shall we say, "infamous notability" with a definable impact on history. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Deceased subjects

Are all deceased women on Wikipedia (literally thousands) automatically under the scope of this project, or should they have also have some suggested criteria for inclusion? Are some of these best left to their primary projects to look after, e.g. female opera singers which are primarily maintained by WikiProject Opera?

• I assume that, in the example given, the opera project is looking at the entries primarily in the context of opera history; we'd be looking at the entries primarily in the context of women's history. I don't see a conflict there; both projects can contribute to making the entry better, in different ways. Penny Richards (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards

• Leaning toward include all. Agree with Penny that our focus and contributions will be different. In addition I have found many of these articles have had no projects looking out for them. Potentially we could group these articles into "focus areas" rather than calling them task forces. This way contributors would know which ones they would like to concentrate on and it would make the large number more manageable. --Tbennert (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree that all deceased women are within the scope of the project. Indeed the tagging of Anna Nicole Smith was one of the incidents that led to this discussion! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just a question on that. What happens with the articles who have no primary projects to cover them? There are many articles which still have no project banners at all. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• WikiProject Biography automatically covers them all. LadyofShalott 15:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes and the Biography project has multiple specialised workgroups as well. Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Roscelese that death alone is too low a bar to set. I might not object to saying that the biography of any woman born before a certain date could be included; that would allow us to exclude figures who are primarily of interest from the perspective of contemporary culture, not history. Perhaps any woman born before 1900? A more generous date of 1950 would allow us to include BLPs of women whose careers, while in many cases still ongoing, are of sufficient duration and maturity to have produced RS. Maybe something like: Biographies of women born before 1900 may be appropriate for inclusion under this project's banner. The biography of a woman born 1900–1950 may also be included if reliable sources discuss her life or career in the context of women's history or from a historical perspective. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

While a think biographies of pre-20th century women are in need of more attention and suggestions on improvement, wouldn't this exclude several significant politicians? For example Angela Merkel was only born in 1954. Dimadick (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The date was just intended to prompt discussion of how we might establish a cut-off. Tbennert, for instance, has suggested we exclude BLPs, period, and I'm not opposed to that if other members agree. I was thinking of outliers like Florence Green, the last living veteran of WW1, or women from the WW2 era. WW2 might engage project members, and it could seem arbitrary to include the biographies of some women who participated and not others who are still alive. That's why date of birth seemed like another way to go. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Cynwolfs and Roscaleses's approach. There needs to be some time for these figures (and the events in which they participated) to have been written about in depth from a historical perspective. Again, there's no reason why Angela Merkel could not appear in a Women's history portal, but is there a compelling reason for this project to look after biographies like this? Is it the best use of the project's resources? Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note: See Criteria for including biographies above for the draft proposal which relates to all biographies (living or deceased). Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Works of art

Broadly construed to include specific works in literature and the performing and visual arts. Should these be included and if so, under what criteria?

• Does WikiProject:Gender Studies or WikiProject:Feminism already have these in their scope? If so I am inclined to let those projects manage these. My interpretation is that these works would be included to show how women were viewed during a particular time period, which falls more under those projects. If not I would limit inclusion to defining works of art, in the broadest scope of the word art, which have altered the view of women in a particular society, or have been regularly studied in a Women's History curriculum. I would put a timeframe of nothing newer than 1980. --Tbennert (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Tbennert that works that might be considered relevant to this project are probably better handled by GS or Feminism. Could we come up with a few examples of what works should be tagged as WH, so editors have something to go by? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not certain how to deal with works of art. With literature it is relatively easy to find scholarly works analyzing just about any subject. But what about paintings or sculptures? On the subject of the other Wikiprojects, Wikiproject:Gender Studies includes few specific works and doesn't seem particularly interested in art and/or literature. Their most recent request on collaboration was on the article Incarceration of women, a couple of months ago. Wikiproject: Feminism has covered some of the ancient Greek tragedies, but not many works from other eras or cultures. Dimadick (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Works of art can be treated like the White Bikini article. If the article talks about why a work of art is important in women's history, it should be included. One example is, Judith Slaying Holofernes a painting that portrays "a cathartic expression of the artist's private, and perhaps repressed, rage." Art was often the only acceptable outlet for women to have a voice. Even though the artist is a woman, that in itself is not significant, but the painting influenced other artists and Judith Beheading Holofernes article talks about how later representations "suggest 'a crisis of the male ego,' fears and violent fantasies all entangled with an eroticized death, which women and sexuality aroused in at least some men around the turn of the century." Based on these paintings, women's issues came to the forefront and were being written about, which makes the paintings significant to Women's History. USchick (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Include works of art if RS discuss them in the context of women's history, with the caveat that this is not the same thing as "how women are viewed," which is more a matter of Gender Studies or Feminism. A work of art might be analyzed in terms of the male gaze without really telling us anything about women's history, if "women's history" is concerned with what women did and experienced. To take an example from my field, Ovid's love poetry is not relevant to women's history because it expresses the views a particular kind of Roman male had of women, but rather because the poetry provides insight into the everyday life of women, such as their participation in public events and their personal freedom of movement, as discussed in existing scholarship. That is, this is isn't a judgment to be made by an individual editor, because that would be OR; there have to be scholarly sources on the work of art that treat it as evidence of women's lives. Along the lines of what I said about biographies, we could set a date before which any work of art should have been created in order to be under this project's banner, so that it reflects a historical perspective, not contemporary culture. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree essentially with the approaches of Tbennert, Cynwolfe, and the example cited by USchick, but think Cyanwolfe's point is key and should be used in any preamble to the new Scope section on the main page, i.e. "as discussed in existing scholarship on Women's History.". Incidentally, I don't think it's important that a current WP article actually has a section on or covers the subject's relevance to Women's History. What's important is that there exist reliable sources which could be used to write such a section. I also agree that contemporary works, and works in general which simply "show how women were viewed" are better handled by the Feminism and Gender Studies projects. See also my comment under Cultural phenomena and practices, which is in a similar vein but more detailed. Voceditenore (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

It appears we are close to consensus on this topic. Below is an initial draft based on comments above. Please provide any changes needed. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Works of Art should be included if discussed in existing scholarship on Women's History. Works of art include literature, performing or visual arts. A few important points to keep in mind:
  • An article may not currently cover its relevance to women’s history
  • The gender of the creator is not relevant
  • Art that shows how women were viewed would more aptly be covered by WikiProject:Gender Studies or WikiProject Feminism

---

Comments

Could we say "may be included" instead of "should be included"? I don't want to imply that it's necessary to go looking for works of art to banner simply because you can make an argument for them; I'd rather have the implication be "if you want to include a work of art because it's a significant document of women's history, you may." I'm also thinking I'd like a date parameter, and that if we developed these criteria a little more fully, it would help with non-biography criteria in general. How 'bout:

A work of art, regardless of the gender of its creator, may be included if it is discussed in existing scholarship as contributing to women's history, even if the current version of the article lacks coverage of this perspective. Works of art under this project's banner should show how women lived, what they did, or what they experienced. A work of art that is of interest primarily because it shows attitudes toward women, or how women were viewed, may be covered more aptly by WikiProject:Gender Studies or WikiProject Feminism. "Works of art" will include literature, performing arts, and visual arts.

• A work of art created after 1968 (I just pulled this date out of the air; it could be 1950 or anything else) should not be included unless its subject matter deals with women in a historical setting. For example, a notable play about the women's suffrage movement may be appropriate for inclusion, as is Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party. A work of historical fiction dealing with women should be included only if it has received significant coverage for its treatment of women's history as such. A movie that offers a serious perspective on women's history may be included, if reliable sources discuss its significance; a costume drama that uses the past primarily for aesthetic or allegorical purposes, such as Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, lies outside the scope of this project.

Not to pick on Sofia. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely "may" rather than "should" be included. I think my brain and keyboard were not fully connecting. The disclaimer could have "if in doubt, discuss" and a clarification on what would fall into WP:Gender Studies since this comes up often. For simplification I would prefer to go with 1950 on as many areas as possible. Your wording sounds much better and offers good examples for clarification. Let's cut, print and get to work :) --Tbennert (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Cynwolfe's new wording. Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mythological or fictional women

Broadly construed. Examples which are currently bannered by WH, include Muse, Demeter and Barbie. Should these be included and if so, under what criteria?

• Keep, but could easily be persuaded. Mythological women could be considered archetypes of womanly behaviors. Fictional would need to be well defined if kept, otherwise I foresee massive debate and contention. Possibly exclude any animation or TV/film characters, or at a minimum put a time frame to keep popular culture issues from creeping in. --Tbennert (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I take back my keep. Now that I think about it, what would we as a project contribute to these articles that is not already being developed by another project? I would rather see our focus on real world items. Maybe when we are an old project that has years of work behind us we can add these back in. --Tbennert (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think that anything for which the bannering rationale is "this fictional entity shows how women were viewed in the society of the time" belongs with GS, not WH. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep mythological and religious figures. Keep fictional characters at a bare minimum. There is already another Wikiproject which covers these. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• As with works of art, these should be included only if RS discuss them in the context of women's history. Demeter is notable for women's history because of the importance of women in the real-life religious practices associated with her (Bona Dea is another good example). Most major female deities of ancient Greece and Rome contribute to an understanding of the religious life of women, but there are hundreds of minor goddesses that are tended by the projects Mythology and Classical Greece & Rome and shed very little light on women's history when taken individually. For fictional characters, Tbennert mentions a time frame to prevent injudicious inclusion of those more properly considered in terms of contemporary popular culture. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is, what time frame? Before television (c. 1925)? Before film (c. 1895)? Before animation (c. 1892)? Dimadick (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the question of time frame recurs in this discussion, we may want to establish a cut-off point in general. Something along the lines of "This project focuses on women's history up to 1900/1930/1950/1968," whatever date we can achieve consensus for. I suggest this only if our project consensus is that we share a notion that our stated interest in "history" here wasn't meant to include contemporary culture. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Tbennert's guidelines for works of art have suggested the following to me: Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Mythological, legendary, or fictional characters may be included in this project only if they have a high degree of significance in the understanding of women's history, as indicated by existing scholarship. Articles on characters included by this project should provide perspectives on the lives of real women and their activities, as interpreted by scholars. A character who is of interest primarily because she embodies attitudes toward women may be covered more aptly by WikiProject:Gender Studies or WikiProject Feminism. A fictional character created after 1968 should be included only if the work of art in which she appears meets the criteria for inclusion outlined above, and if her own exceptional significance to women's history is discussed by reliable sources.

---

Comments

Why the date 1968? Boneyard90 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Other than a request to change the date to 1950 for ease of remembering, I support this for our criteria. --Tbennert (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, but also suggest 1950. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Events

What types of events would be in the scope of this project? What are the criteria for including an individual event? Should current events be included?

• Not exactly an event, but I envision anything in Category:Women's suffrage by country to be included. Are there any standard events that would typically be studied in a Women's History class? Would not include current events, even though we know "history" doesn't mean "past", until the impact of a current event can be studied it feels too much like prediction to me. --Tbennert (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Activist campaigns should probably be included, including suffrage campaigns, abortion rights, etc. Define "current". An event occurring a decade before can already have received historical coverage. But an event currently ongoing probably has no such luck. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Articles on movements, issues, or broad topics such as "women's rights" typically have a historical component, even if the article deals with the subject up to the present, so to me these are appropriate for women's history. In regard to single events, or campaigns that occurred within a period of time with start and end dates, I agree with Tbennert that "women's history" shouldn't be about current events per se. I wonder again whether we want to say "must have occurred before X year." On the other hand, the "Arab Spring" is of such clear historical notability, and the role of women so striking, that I would find it hard to object to a project member bannering related articles. I can't explain away my inconsistency on this point. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Very few comments on this, so I am assuming everyone agrees with what is said :) Here's an initial draft to include as the scope. Please comment with agreement, or changes that would be needed. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Articles on movements (such as suffrage campaigns), issues (abortion rights), or broad topics such as "women's rights" typically have a historical component and should therefore be included. Single events which occur in a short span of time (ie, less than one year) should have reliable sources which indicate their importance in women's history.

---

Comments

• Very clear. I'd go with this. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yep. Me too.

Organizations

Is every organization primarily or even partially aimed at women, regardless of its age, mission, or size, in the scope of this project? If not, what sorts of organizations, if any, should be included?

• We have List of women's organizations and that may be a good starting point. Having a hard time wrapping this one with the historical perspective. I would be inclined to include organizations that had a focus on improving women's position in their culture, like increasing literacy for instance, regardless of age or size. --Tbennert (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would say that organizations that have impacted women in a historical sense should be included. This might include professional organizations, trade unions, women's rights organizations, and social or political groups. Whether or not the organization is "in scope" would depend on the content of the individual article.Tjepsen (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would have to agree with Tjensen on what to focus on. Though I think that many of these articles are particularly underdeveloped in Wikipedia and might give a false impression on their impact. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• There are a great many women's clubs and societies around the world, ones which did not have much of a bearing on women's history in general. I just tagged the central article of women's clubs but I do not think very many individual groups were important to the history of women. Regarding women's political clubs focused on activism and social change, more of these would be appropriate, especially if a notable woman was in the leadership, or the group accomplished a notable feat. Binksternet (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with just about everything said here. Again wonder (in keeping with what Tbennert said about how to align this with a historical perspective) if we might want to include only those that were founded before a certain date. This hypothetical date I keep wondering about could be the same for all subjects: organizations founded before 1950, works of art created before 1950, women born before 1950. (I'm not arguing for 1950; just picking a date for the sake of it.) Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• On the point above, it might be useful to look at the guidelines the National Park Service uses for historical significance--something muse be at least 50 years old to be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, unless it possesses exceptional significance. See http://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm. Mrmedit (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)mrmedit

Cultural phenomena and practices

For want of a better term, but broadly construed. Some articles related to topics in fashion, health, sport, sexuality, cultural practices, etc. have already been bannered, e.g. Bikini, Health in Ghana' Canada women's national soccer team, Dyke (slang), Wedding. Should these types of articles be in the project's scope. If so, what are the criteria for inclusion/exclusion?

• Inclined to put sport topics on hold until proposed WikiProject is decided. If it goes forward they can have all women's sport articles, if it doesn't I say invite all editors who were interested over here as a taskforce. For fashion, general topics like Bikini are understandable for scope, but specific ones such as White bikini of Ursula Andress and so-and-so's Wedding dress are more related to a particular person than women's history. Health, no for the general topics. Include those specifically related to women and historical in focus, of which I can't think of any examples. Sexuality and cultural practices, keep as long as the topic contributed to the way women were viewed in society. Victorian morality seems relevant to me, Wedding not so much. --Tbennert (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Tbennert, you might need to take a closer look on the articles before deciding. The "white bikini" is not important because the individual actress wore it. The article discusses its impact on popularizing bikinis among the general public. "The white bikini is regarded as perhaps the most important in the history of the bikini and sales of the two piece bikini rocketed after the appearance of Andress in Dr. No". On the other hand, some topics recently bannered raise red flags for me. Since when is History of human sexuality specifically an issue of women's history? Sexual slavery currently includes gender-neutral statistics such as "around 1.2 million children are believed to be involved in prostitution" and gives the specific impression that the situation is not limited to girls. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• If you're going to include Bikini, Olivia Newton-John, White bikini of Ursula Andress, and Wedding, it raises the question of what kinds of articles about women, or that involve women, you wouldn't include. To make any sense, the project has to be self-limiting, otherwise it becomes meaningless. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I already offered a real source which covers Olivia Newton-John as part of women's history. Fashion articles often have much to do with what was acceptable for women at a certain timeframe. Wedding, however, has no historical perspective at this point. It is about the specific ceremony. I find hard to believe that is of particular significance to the project. Marriage at least attempts to cover historical subjects. I wouldn't include articles which I feel cover humanity as a whole and not women per se. Dimadick (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think Wedding is a perfectly apt subject for the project. Very many of the human sexuality topics, the general ones, should be in this project, and already are. In general, I am in favor of a more open bannering policy, casting a wider net. Binksternet (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Don't include unless the article has a historical section of some substance. Contraception seems appropriate because it has a substantial history section, and there is no History of contraception. But again, to me women's history is about what women did and experienced, not how they were viewed, which is a concern of Feminism and Gender Studies. So I'm not keen on including things that merely show attitudes toward women. I agree with SlimVirgin's concerns in particular. The Wedding article doesn't seem to offer much historical material; Chinese marriage, however, does. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Tbennert's, Cynwolfe's, and USchick's approach both for this and for artistic works. On the whole, it may be sufficient to simply say the project generally speaking does not cover aspects of contemporary culture. I'm sorry but the book Dimadick cited may have history in the title, but it is a mere outline, not an depth historical analysis, and becomes increasingly shallow as it approaches the 20th century. I see no way that a one line mention in it that Olivia Newton-John starred in Grease and was nominated for an Oscar counts as affirming her lasting contribution to history in general or even the history of women in particular.

  I also make the point (once again) that "casting the net wide" has to be shown to be a clear benefit to this project and this project only, not a clear benefit for someone doing research on Women's Studies. Project banners are for projects, not for readers, and it is quite wrong to use them as a form of indexing, categorizing, or publicising articles. Voceditenore (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

This section seems to include the least amount of consensus. There are so many possible articles it is hard to get a good handle on these topics. Below is a very generic statement. I think if we can make an agreement for Biographies to include, which will reduce a major amount of discussion, we can make a list of all the articles in this group and hash them out. Also I think it is important that somewhere official like we state that Sports related topics are on hold. --Tbennert (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• In general WikiProject:Women’s History will not cover aspects of contemporary culture. Articles related to topics in fashion, health, sport, sexuality, cultural practices, etc which might be covered should have a section specifically on the historical impact on women, or reliable sources must exist for creating a section. Articles which cover how women are viewed would be more appropriately covered by WikiProject:Gender Studies or WikiProject Feminism.

---

Comments

• Agree (but note I've tweaked the wording a bit). Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, but could we add a date to the first sentence? For example, "aspects of contemporary culture post-1968." I'd be fine with an earlier date too. Could be 1950 to conform to biographical criteria. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree but suggest we keep to 1950 for consistency, if a date is required. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm feeling 1950 is too early. I know many people (much younger than I) who think of the 1980s as "history". The year 1950 pre-dates the internet, the HIV virus, and even the household television, among other events and advances that have defined our "modern culture". Regarding Women's History and contemporary culture, 1950 pre-dates the sexual revolution, the NOW movement, and the contributions and impact of women such as Rosa Parks, Geraldine Ferraro, and Madonna. I think alot has happened after 1950 that has been defined in terms of history. I understand the 1950 criteria for biographies and the desire for consistency, but I think the point at which "modern culture" begins needs to be re-considered. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Although I could also go with 1970, I think the 1950 date is meant to reflect precisely what you're saying: the entrance of mass media into the equation in the fifties is a turning point of modernity. It's the beginning of the post-literate era that my daughter's children seem likely to inhabit, which renders the era of the printed word a sort of blip between the oral culture of antiquity and the visual culture of an iPad world. And yes, the feminist movement does indeed change the nature of women's history. That's the point of selecting a date that marks this project as distinct from either WIkiProject Feminism or a hypothetical WIkiProject Women's Studies. The cutoff point is meant to reflect what project members want to work on. A main concern is that women have not been adequately represented in overview articles of historical periods such as World War I, the American Old West, the Middle Ages and so on. In Middle Ages, the word "women" does not appear in the body text; "monks" appear but not "nuns"; and although I've only scrolled through this long article, I see the names of many men and none of women, not even Mary, despite the popularity of her cult. For members who want to improve content, it's important to focus on a manageable number of articles. Our concern has been that the project should not exist just to see how many articles we can plaster with banners, but to make meaningful improvements in what readers actually find in the articles. Obviously editors will have interests beyond the project parameters, and they are of course free to pursue those. But project members need to establish shared priorities and what we'd be willing to work on together. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I would also point out that ongoing movements and issues are accommodated in the guidelines, so that the participation of those who are interested in law or women's rights and have a broadly historical perspective is eagerly sought. History of women in the workforce, anyone? But this obsession with what BLPs can be bannered, especially by editors who haven't signed on to work as project members, is a distraction. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree and point out that for those of us first-wave baby-boomers (i.e. born in 1946), 1950–2011 is contemporary culture.;-) But these criteria aren't about deciding what constitutes "importance" or what Wikipedia's readers might think is important or even what some cultural historians might think is important. It's purely about deciding what the focus and priorities of this project and its members are, what will be the core of this project's collective activities. Note that the criteria only state "generally lies outside", and we have left a couple of get-out clauses for exceptional cases. The criteria are a guide to bannering and a guide to what the project is concentrating on for anyone who is thinking of joining. It doesn't stop any individual members or anyone else with a burning desire to document Madonna's impact on women's history from doing so. It just means that as a project, these sorts of articles are generally outside our scope. And frankly, I'd definitely go for a date like 1950, precisely because it clearly sets us off from WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Gender Studies, and a hypothetical WikiProject Women's Studies. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Ok, I think I'm seeing where you all are going with the date. But, as we're talking "Cultural practices and phenomena", Cynwolfe's last comment is a little perplexing. What BLPs? What editors? Or was that more of a general gripe? Boneyard90 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
          • the 1950 cutoff for events is much too early--and has no relation to the 1950 cutoff for births. Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Criteria draft

Would it be all right if sometime today I pulled out all the criteria and collated them below? To see whether we have a draft of criteria altogether? I also have drafted offline a proposal to replace the current "Scope and Goals" section on the project page, most of which in my view belongs in a "Background" section as explaining the project's genesis, not its purpose, goals, or scope. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes please, to both! --Tbennert (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes please, to both from me too! Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Project scope draft

To me, a great deal of what is currently in our statement of Scope and Goals would be better in a "Background" section deeper into the page; what follows here under Scope draft begins with something more like a mission statement, and our goals would be more specific, such as incorporating the perspectives and experiences of women into existing history articles (American Old West has been mentioned as an example of this). Please regard the intro below as nothing more than a conversation starter based on what we've all been saying. A goals section should be drafted separately. When I pulled this together, I edited some things to make them cohere, and added some things that came to me when I saw it as a whole. Edit at will (or mercilessly, as they used to say). I inserted italic comments or questions at points when I felt in particular need of guidance. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made one teeny word change (cult to following) and would be happy with this as it is written. I do recommend collapsing under headings or this will feel very overwhelming to a new member. --Tbennert (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Scope draft

The primary purpose of WIkiProject Women's History is to provide support for project members and any other editors in improving Wikipedia's coverage of women from a historical perspective. New members are welcome.

Although we recognize that the definition of women's history as an academic field of study can be flexible and even problematic, this project focuses on:

• the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century;
• ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins;
• contemporary women as agents of historic change.

Topics of interest primarily because they reflect perceptions or views of women and their prescribed roles, as well as articles on current events without a verifiable historical dimension or on contemporary popular culture, may be more aptly covered by WikiProject Gender Studies, WikiProject Feminism, or other projects. WikiProject Women's History is not WikiProject Women or WikiProject Women's Studies (please strike this sentence if it's needlessly emphatic.)

Criteria for inclusion

Following are criteria for including an article under this project's banner. When in doubt, join us for a discussion.

(The following sections will be collapsed under headings on the actual project page, so as not to be overwhelming.)

Biographies

A biography that has met the notability requirements outlined at WP:BIO may be included within this project if it meets one of the following criteria.

• The biography of a woman born before 1900 is generally within the scope of this project.
• The biography of a woman born between 1900 and 1950 is within the scope of this project if reliable sources confirm her notability as a historical figure, or discuss her life or career in the context of women's history.
• The biography of a woman born after 1950 may be included only if she has exceptional and verifiable historic significance. Spheres of notable activity include but are not limited to: politics and society, law, an art form, the military, labor, education, health, commerce or consumer protection, humanitarianism, sports, or science and technology. "Exceptional significance" should be demonstrated on the article's talk page by a clear and reliably sourced statement of what the person did or achieved that made a lasting contribution to the world.
  • In deciding whether a woman born after 1950 should be included by this project, consider that a "lasting contribution" is not fame; the winning of an award; statistical popularity (such as sales); or record-setting, unless a "first" results in a societal or cultural change. Examples:
    • An invention is considered a lasting contribution; a famous haircut is not.
    • Breaking a barrier to women's participation in sports is a lasting contribution; winning a gold medal is a personal achievement that in and of itself causes no necessary change beyond the individual's life.
    • Winning an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress is not a lasting achievement, nor is winning a Nobel Prize; however, the kind of work for which a Nobel Prize is won by definition represents a major advance in the field, and qualifies the laureate for inclusion.
• The biography of a man may be included within the scope of this project under the same guidelines, if his role in women's history is a major aspect of his notability, as indicated by reliable sources. For instance, Henry Browne Blackwell, the husband of Lucy Stone, was an activist for women's rights.
• The biography of any scholar who has met the notability requirements of WP:ACADEMIC may be included by this project if women's history is a major emphasis of the scholar's body of work. Example: Ann D. Gordon, leader of The Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony Papers Project at Rutgers University.

Works of art

"Works of art" will include literature, performing arts, and visual arts. A work of art, regardless of the gender of its creator, may be included if it is discussed in existing scholarship as contributing to women's history, even if the current version of the article lacks coverage of this aspect. Works of art under this project's banner should show how women lived, what they did, or what they experienced. A work of art that is of interest because it shows attitudes toward women, or how women were viewed, may be covered more aptly by WikiProject Gender Studies or WikiProject Feminism.

• A work of art created after the mid-20th century should not be included unless its subject matter deals with women in a historical setting. For example, a notable play about the women's suffrage movement may be appropriate for inclusion, as is Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party.
  • A post-1950 work of historical fiction dealing with women should be included only if it has received significant coverage for its treatment of women's history as such.
  • A movie intended to offer a perspective on women's history may be included, if reliable sources discuss its significance. Examples: Iron Jawed Angels (2004); Frida (2002). A costume drama that uses the past primarily for aesthetic or allegorical purposes, such as Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette or Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge!, lies outside the scope of this project.

Fictional or mythological characters

Mythological, legendary, or fictional characters may be included in this project only if they have a high degree of significance for the understanding of women's history, as indicated by existing scholarship. The character's article should provide perspectives on the lives of real women and their activities, as interpreted by scholars. A character who is of interest because she embodies attitudes toward women may be covered more aptly by WikiProject:Gender Studies or WikiProject Feminism.

• A fictional character created after 1950 should be included only if the work of art in which she appears meets the criteria for inclusion outlined above, and if her own exceptional significance to women's history is discussed by reliable sources.
• A deity should be included only if the religious practice of women was a distinctive feature of her following.
• A legendary figure, such as Lucretia or Rosie the Riveter, who was considered (quasi-)historical within her own culture may be included following the criteria outlined under Biographies above.

Movements and issues

Articles on movements (such as suffrage campaigns), issues (abortion rights), or broad topics such as "women's rights" typically have a historical component and should therefore be included.

• A single event occurring after 1950 and within a relatively short or limited span of time may be included by this project only if reliable sources have discussed its importance to women's history in general.

Organizations and groups

Organizations formed by or for women before or during the mid-20th century generally are included within this project, as well as those in which women played an important role, especially if coverage of women in the current article is underdeveloped. The organization may exist up to the present, or may be defunct. Examples include professional organizations, trade unions, voluntary associations such as humanitarian or aid groups, women's rights groups, women's clubs, religious orders, educational institutions, military units, and other social or political groups.

• A pre-1970 art movement, literary society, musical ensemble, performing arts group, or arts patronage organization in which women played a founding, predominant, or fundamental role may be included.
• Organizations or groups formed after 1970 for the purpose of studying, promoting, or reenacting women's history may be included.

Culture and society

Contemporary culture (1950 to present) generally lies outside the scope of this project. An overview article on topics such as fashion, health, sport, sexuality, or other cultural practices may be included in this project only if it meets one of the following criteria:

• incorporates a perspective of women's history throughout;
• contains a historical section that demonstrates the significance of the topic to women's history;
• currently lacks the perspective of women's history, but reliable sources indicate that the article is therefore incomplete, non-neutral, or unbalanced.

History

A major goal of WikiProject Women's History is to incorporate the perspective of women's history in overview articles of historical periods or pre-1950 events which may currently lack such coverage. A history article (such as American Old West) should be included in this project if reliable sources exist for improving the coverage of women throughout or in a section that focuses on the experiences and contributions of women.

---

Scope Draft: Members' final comments

• I support this draft in its current form (minor tweaks can always be made later). Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• I also support this draft. Penny Richards (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards
• Support as written. --Tbennert (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and reiterate that it can always be refined as we go along. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing: Maybe the note under "History", since it's so crucial, should not be collapsed under the header, as the other criteria should be. Not sure. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)\

I think the "History" note should be included in the uncollapsed intro and moved up there as a fourth bullet after "contemporary women as agents of historic change". It's important and highly relevant statement about the project's goals, and it includes the key criteria repeated in many of the collapsed details, i.e. the existence of reliable sources from historians. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• support on the basis its not carved in stone and is continually up for review and change as project experience develops.Lumos3 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work on creating this Scope draft that weighs the historic value in categories relevant to women in culture. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- as of right now. As long as things can be changed. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• oppose it's good except for 1950 cutoff --totally artificial; a more natural break is 1980 to cover major developments that are the focus of many RS.. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The goal was deliberately not to include the feminist movement of the 1970s, in order not to duplicate the work of WikiProject Feminism. The broad outline of scope says "women's lives up to the mid-20th century", a more flexible cutoff than a single date, more or less contemporaneous with the design period Mid-Century modern. That's still three millennia to cover, give or take. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

feminism included only a fraction of women's history. The proposal cuts off many or most women's history post 1950. (I'm especially interested in immigration and demographic topics, Immigration reform = 1965; Baby Boom = 1950s ) Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what would exclude these topics. See the second of the three broadest statements of project scope: "ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins", as well as under "Movements and issues": "Articles on movements (such as suffrage campaigns), issues (abortion rights), or broad topics such as "women's rights" typically have a historical component and should therefore be included." Moreover, the 1950s and 1965 both fall within that "mid-century period" analogous to Mid-Century modern. The cutoff dates affect mainly biographies (by DOB), works of art, and fictional characters. This was to prevent the indiscriminate bannering of BLPs and pop culture simply because their subjects were women, particularly pop culture icons of the last 30 years, whose articles are already well-tended. The goal was to manage the project's work flow in terms of importance ratings (Mariah Carey, for instance, had been rated of "high" importance to the project, though not by a project member). We were getting continual complaints about project creep. Our intention was to make sure the project was responsive to exactly the kind of serious topics you outline here, and that medievalists, or Tudor buffs, or others interested in traditional forms of history weren't put off by what I at least perceived as frivolous distractions, such as arguing over whether the project should pitch in to maintain the Lisa Kudrow article. Admittedly, to my 14-year-old daughter, Friends is indeed a historical artifact, and not nearly as funny as I Love Lucy. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins" would make the kinds of articles/future work mentioned by Rjensen definitely within the scope. Variations of this statement and related ones also appear in the various individual criteria. So I don't really see a problem there. The purpose of making the "mid 20th century" (broadly construed) and 1950 for biographies the cut-off, unless there are exceptional circumstances (and there are already several get-out clauses for those), is to prevent the project creep which has basically stalled this project and made it virtually impossible to accurately priortise or even keep track of the truly relevant articles, let alone work on collaboratively improving them. That's what a project is for. It's not for defining or categorizing a topic area. That's what categories are for. I strongly suggest we go with these new criteria with the proviso that we can adjust them as necessary if we find it would be useful to the project. We've already seen what happened when it basically got turned into WikiProject Women. Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, i'm pretty upset. the project is creeping the wrong way. The manifesto is too negative (emphasizing what not to cover) and too restrictive. The 1950 business is a bad mistake with no justification whatever. for example, the entire TV industry is off limits, and the Peace Corps, & the antiwar movement of the 1960s & Playboy. this fear of minor items is blocking major historyRjensen (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you calm your emotions and read what the guidelines actually say: ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins. The role of women in antiwar movements would certainly be covered by this. Your example of the Peace Corps is a good one, but since it was founded in 1961, it's covered by any definition of "mid-century" that I know of, since this is a period, not a point in time; however, I do see a problem with the wording under Organizations, and will change it to "organizations formed … before or during the mid-20th century." Thanks, and the wording of the guidelines is what we're here to work on. No need to imply that your fellow project members who've been spending considerable time on working this out are misguided cretins. Playboy in its founding is a mid-century phenomenon, though I'd have to say that Playboy is about the male gaze and how women are viewed, not about "the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women"; Hefner's daughter is to my mind of more relevance to our project, and a case could probably be made for the biographies of a few outstanding bunnies as emblematic of certain "experiences of women." I see the value of Playboy in relation to WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Gender Studies, but in the interest of full disclosure, my own feminist views make me tired of being told that the history of women must always be framed and restricted by how we're viewed by men; to me that is a form of intellectual oppression, and I think the women who are members of this project have taken a stand against it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That was a little more dramatic than I intended. Let me rephrase: members of this project who only happen to be women have tried to focus on "the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women", and not on how men view women, which (as ongoing discussion indicates) we feel is an approach more within the scope of WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Gender Studies. Or other projects. A main concern is that historical overview articles (American Old West has been one example) insufficiently incorporate the perspective of women's history, meaning "what women did." In attempting to distinguish the work of this project from the other two projects, analysis from the perspective of gender politics has been something some of us have felt can be better served elsewhere. That's the source of framing this project's work by looking at women as agents rather than women as objects. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - on the same lines as Rjensen; 1980 seems a more reasonable cut-off, as per my earlier comments. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Boneyard90, have you considered becoming a member of the project? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought I was. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Are you on the list of project members under another name? Apologies if I overlooked it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
        • There's a list? I dunno... I placed the Userbox on my Userpage, Wiki-publicly proclaiming my membership. In other WikiProjects, that's all that has to be done, and sometimes a bot automatically places the name on a list after pasting the Userbox to the Userpage. Aside from all that, I have generally figured that participation is more important than lists of names. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Notices of the project's current activities and discussions will sometimes be posted to each member's talk page. So you may not receive those unless you're listed (see the link on the main project page). The bot you mention would be something to consider using. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, ok, since you have graciously extended an invitation and provided some compelling reasons, I have signed the roster of participants and made it Wiki-official. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable to me. I don't have any strong feelings about the 1950 cutoff. I suggest adding girls'/women's schools to the list of types of organizations. For instance, Lucy Cobb Institute (which I started) should definitely be within the scope of this project. LadyofShalott 17:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support (although "nihil obstat" might be more accurate...) Tjepsen (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Very good work in creating this, and thank you for doing it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Thank you to those who took the time to draft this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support These sort of guidelines really help me in how I categorize my work and I very much appreciate the effort to scope this out. Pjefts (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support very clear and helpful for project members Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)