→RfC on pronouns throughout life: new section |
archaic terminology |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Hello everyone - you are all invited to participate in [[WT:MOS#RfC on pronouns throughout life|an RfC on whether or not to use the current preferred pronouns of a transgender person throughout that person's life]]. As editors interested in and knowledgeable about gender, I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hello everyone - you are all invited to participate in [[WT:MOS#RfC on pronouns throughout life|an RfC on whether or not to use the current preferred pronouns of a transgender person throughout that person's life]]. As editors interested in and knowledgeable about gender, I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
==Aviatrix and other archaic terms== |
|||
::''Cross post from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism|WikiProject Feminism]]'': |
|||
I've been going through a lot of historical biographies lately and am surprised to see how often archaic gendered terms such as poetess, sculptress, and aviatrix crop up in Wikipedia articles. I know some of these come from the older sources such as the 1911 Britannica, but in other cases these are the result of decisions being made by editors. There's currently a discussion on [[Talk:Amy Johnson]] over whether she should be referred to as an aviatrix, for instance. I'm wondering how this has been dealt with previously and if there are specific policies surrounding such uses. I've found the essays [[Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language]] and [[Wikipedia:Use modern language]] and note that [[WP:MOS]] says "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". It seems as if despite these fairly clear precepts, the use of these terms persists. [[User:Gobonobo|<font face="DejaVu Sans" color="333300">Gobōnobō</font>]] [[User_talk:Gobonobo|<sup>+</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Gobonobo|<sup>c</sup>]] 23:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:22, 13 September 2013
|
Category:Women sociologists
Category:Women sociologists has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Meclee (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Pangender
An article in this WikiProject, Pangender, has been proposed for a merge with the article Genderqueer. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. April Arcus (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Page Name
Why is it named the wikiproject gender studies, when that's rather clunky and gender studies is obviously feminism heavy? shouldn't the page be named something more un-biased, for lack of a better term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
RfC on pronouns throughout life
Hello everyone - you are all invited to participate in an RfC on whether or not to use the current preferred pronouns of a transgender person throughout that person's life. As editors interested in and knowledgeable about gender, I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Aviatrix and other archaic terms
- Cross post from WikiProject Feminism:
I've been going through a lot of historical biographies lately and am surprised to see how often archaic gendered terms such as poetess, sculptress, and aviatrix crop up in Wikipedia articles. I know some of these come from the older sources such as the 1911 Britannica, but in other cases these are the result of decisions being made by editors. There's currently a discussion on Talk:Amy Johnson over whether she should be referred to as an aviatrix, for instance. I'm wondering how this has been dealt with previously and if there are specific policies surrounding such uses. I've found the essays Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language and Wikipedia:Use modern language and note that WP:MOS says "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". It seems as if despite these fairly clear precepts, the use of these terms persists. Gobōnobō + c 23:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)