Talk:Women in government

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VeritatemQuaerendamXI, Dizzyturtle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaishwar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ooneil.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabelleadeyinka. Peer reviewers: Kef1170, Juliaschilz, DanOWL678.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Version of "United States Case Study"

I am planning to reorganize this case study a little bit more and title one part of the case study the section as “Obstacles of Women in united States Office.” I also am planning to add another case study to go along with Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Nikki Haley has faced both racial and gender discrimination during her time in politics and I think she is the perfect current example. I will talk a bit about her childhood and the gubernatorial race of 2010. VeritatemQuaerendamXI (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Version of "Women in Politics"

As we have recently revised the page, we would appreciate your comments or suggestions. Please address any issues to myself (Amr0316) or the co-author (Colleenfugate). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr0316 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal What?

In the Case Study Spain section, a word is missing after the word "anecdotal." The word "anecdotal" is an adjective. What word should it modify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.105.205 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding "Women in Politics" to "Women and Governance"

I propose to expand this page to the broader topic of Women and Governance. Women and Politics would be a subset of this page. Expanding the scope of this page would allow for information regarding Nussbaum's work on gender and governance and numerous UN documents on the current state of equality (or lack thereof) in this realm. Expanding this page would provide a more holistic approach to the the topic, rather than narrowly focusing only on politics. I would appreciate any feedback on this idea. Colleenfugate (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't Governance be a section in this article, and leave the title as is? If you have an outline in mind feel free to share it.Lionel (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to change the title to Governance because this is broader than Politics. Logically, it makes more sense, in my opinion, to have the broader facet of a topic be the title. Martha Nussbaum, a scholar who has written on this topic (along with others), has noted the shifting definition of Governance to include not just the state and the economy but also the civil society. By having Governance as the title, we allow for information on women in not only politics, but also their role in other areas of goverance as well. My outline for how the page could be reorganized includes the following sections: 1. the definition of governance, 2. the significance of women in governance 3. the role of democracy in women's representation 4. women in politics (this would then include a section on suffrage, women in national politics, and women in local politics, further divided between executive and legislative), 5. policies to increase women's representation (education, quotas, legislation, financing, research/data, grassroots movements, and 6. case studies of Spain, Finland, India, and Africa. Colleenfugate (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am working with the above poster (Colleenfugate) and would like to explain more about the idea of governance versus just politics. By "governance", we hope to expand the scope of the article to encompass the many ways in which gender affects one's power within a government. This may not be through formal politics, but through more informal avenues as well. Also, the word "politics" may not necessarily encompass local/village governance, which is a topic we plan on covering in our discussion of empowerment and capabilities. As Colleen noted above, there will be a "politics" section in which we will cover politics-based approaches, yet we believe it's crucial to acknowledge the necessity of gender parity in areas of governance which may transcend a more limited politics framework. Amr0316 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the proposal is straddling into original research. Lionel (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we are aware this topic lends itself to original research, we are being extremely cautious to include detailed endnotes for every aspect of the proposed entry. Most citations will either be from United Nations reports or from published scholarly work.Amr0316 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

The organization by Exec/Legislative Branch is unconventional for WP. I think it makes more sense to organiza it by country. Lionel (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting portion concerning 20 hottest conservative women

While the media's alleged fascination with the physical attractiveness of politically active women may be relevant to discussions on women in politics, the section at the bottom of Women in politics is an irresponsible addition to the article. First, at least two of the three source materials from which the section draws clearly violate Wikipedia's standards on verifiability. In particular, the article, "The 20 Hottest Conservative Women In The New Media," is nothing more than an admitted blog post reporting the results of a poll sampling eight or nine internet bloggers including one named, Van Helsing, who recently authored a post in which he described the homosexual lifestyle as, "depraved and degenerate." Such a source clearly fails to meet Wiki's standards on reliable sources as the cited blog is a self published source devoid of any semblance of fact checking. The source from politico.com simply offers commentary on the results of The Right Wing News poll, and likewise cannot be considered reliable research. Furthermore, the contributor should strongly consider whether the posting of the images of politicians deemed, "hot," contributes to media biases that judge women based on physical appearance. I propose that the contributor create a new article focusing on the physical attractiveness of politicians and how it effects their perceptions in society. Such an article should consider reliable fact-checking resources that debate the effects of the media's fixation on attractiveness rather than citing subjective polls considering who the "hottest" politicians might be.

  • Leejohnson898 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cannot be denied that there is substantial content, reliably sourced, covering physical attributes of conservative females, Palin of course comes to mind. Before we delete an important and necessary part of the article, I'd like to see what other editors have to say. In any case, note that theweek.com is WP:RS. Lionel (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Leejohnson898 that the content at the bottom of this page should have been removed, or at least edited. Not only was it unreliable and biased, but it does not fit well with the proposed changes to be made on this page. As stated above, this information can be added to a different page, if so desired. 128.42.87.78 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the proposed deletion. This material lends itself well to a broader discussion (within a separate page) on physical attractiveness within politics, and the ways gender roles may influence this. However, I do hope that such a discussion would also include attractive liberal female politicians as well as attractive conservative/liberal male politicians, to present a neutral and unbiased approach.
  • I agree with the proposed deletion as well as it helps the article page become more of a reliable source.
  • Such a subjective topic does not belong on this page and I agree with leejohnson898's decision to remove the subsection Zpanos (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead rewrite

Nowhere are women mentioned in the opening lead of this article (instead there's a definition of "governance"). It is a major flaw that needs to be addressed. --Turn685 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently adding material

Wrote a new lead paragraph. Lots of reorganizing, adding material, but nothing was deleted. Will be turning some lists into more readable tables shortly. Any suggestions, please add them here, and I'll see if I can fit them in. OttawaAC (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I also decided to add current material under the Women in government office heading. There wasn't much detail about women in government in the western world, so I added a statistic about women in government office in the United States. I am open to ideas about what else to add under this heading as well! Dizzyturtle (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Dizzyturtle[reply]

Renaming to "Women in government"

Calling this article "Women in governance" is an inaccurate use of the word "governance"; governance can mean much more than government, it refers to administration of any organization, such as governance in business, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), charities, non-profits, schools, hospitals, churches, and other institutions. Governance refers to administrative oversight of any organization. "Women in government" is a more accurate title for the content of what was in this article, meaning, women who hold government office (elected or otherwise), so I just renamed the article and set this one up as a redirect to it. OttawaAC (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the cut-and-pasted version under the new title: this isn't because I disagree, it's just that you've separated the article from its history, which you may not do under Wikipedia's attribution requirements. Please use "move" for such renamings, and please seek consensus first. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've given my reasoning for the renaming just up above. Any votes for or against? I notice that the article doesn't get a lot of "hits", and I'm thinking it may have something to do with the esoteric title that it has at the moment. "Women in government" is correct English in any case. OttawaAC (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To get more eyes on the discussion you might want to mention this at WP:FEMINISM. Maybe WP:POLITICS too. The article as it's presently named gets between 20 and 60 hits a day. I pretty much agree with your reasoning for the name change, by the way. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the right move may be to move the page back to Women in politics. The argument advanced for the move to the current title is a bit odd, and I'm not going to bother talking about it unless someone goes back and reads it and still wants me to explain. The phrase "women in politics" is more common, which is why it was there in the first place. -Rrius (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I set out some of my objection below, and I'm going to start an RM. -Rrius (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point: I'd be in favor of "Women in politics" over "Women in government," since this implies more inclusion of those in opposition to a given government. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the move. When I first read the article, I took it as meaning women in government. Whoever wanted the title changed to "governance", I suspect that they were simply equating government=governance when governance involves more than that. In any event, since I had the impression that this article was about women in government, I added a heap of tables with women currently holding office, and the parliamentary participation rate worldwide. "Women in politics" doesn't necessarily need that level of detail on women currently in office, and I'd like two separate articles, one for "Women in politics" and one for "Women in government"... I would start a third article as well, one that is actually called "Women and governance" (or "Women and organizational governance") to deal with matters like the glass ceiling, pink collar ghetto, etc., that plague women trying to get into executive positions in business, academe, school boards, churches and the like. Anyway, I will wait to see how this move pans out before discussing revisions to anything. OttawaAC (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "governance" question

This article was about women in politics. In April, an IP editor grafted a "broader" notion of governance onto it. Much of the additional text is meaningless and bears only a minor relationship to the subject of the article. What's more, much of it is unsourced. The added material is centered around some expanded notion of governance that has to do with "the state, the market, and the civil society" and "how these entities interact, whether working together or in opposition". In essence, this is about something that has little to do with what the bulk of the article is about: women in politics. Frankly, if you removed the "Overview" (overview of what, by the way?) section (and turned the lead into something that is actually coherent and related to the article), the article would instantly become clear, coherent and rational article about a single topic. I don't know if the added material should be preserved somewhere, but it doesn't belong here. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Women in government. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women and governance → Women in politics – This article was moved back in April to reflect the addition of three paragraphs purporting to "expand" the scope of the article to include other aspects of governance. The result was a poorly written lead and poorly written section called "Overview" being added to the rest of the article without in any way making the addition and the original article fit together. Perhaps there is somewhere in the project where the "Overview" section would make sense, but even if so, it needs serious work before being deployed there. Whether there is somewhere to put it or not, that place is not here. Perhaps it would be best to move this article back and deploy the "Women and governance" text to a new article (possibly a re-created Women in politics. Rrius (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the meaning of the word "governance" -- it means administrative oversight for any organization, whether its a government, or a business entity (private enterprise), a non-governmental organization (NGO), non-profits like schools, universities, hospitals, churches, etc. can all have "governance" issues. There's no discussion whatsoever in this article "Women and governance" of public or private administration and women's role therein, although there are a couple of sentences that refer to theories related to government....
The material in this article discusses "Women in government" which is a completely different topic from "Women and governance"...therefore the current title isn't even using correct English, or more accurately, the information in the article is irrelevant to the title.
And the current new lead paragraph is nonsense, sorry. It repeats information listed in the main body of the article, pointlessly. It also opens by restricting the topic to "elected" women leaders in "Western" countries, then lists several women leaders of non-Western countries! Plus "appointed" leaders, and a totalitarian dictator. The current lead needs to be rewritten. Is the article about "governance" or "government"?
Incidentally, I'll be creating a completely separate standalone article about "Women and politics", since that is a separate topic from Women and governance and Women in government -- women lead political parties and are active in politics without ever having an elected government position, or without even having women's suffrage (as political protestors, as political science academics, political theorists and writers, etc., such as Mary Wollstonecraft).

OttawaAC (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, new suggestion: That "Overview" section would make sense in an article called "Women and governance" (in my opinion). "Women in government" would make sense for the current article that we have under discussion here that has inaccurately been named "governance". "Women in politics" would make a dandy new article -- covers women involved in politics whether as government members or not (historically women have been more likely to not hold office, but it hasn't prevented them from being politically active). This is what would make sense to me. OttawaAC from an IP198.103.184.76 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article should be renamed to either "Women in politics" or "Women in government". The article is definitely not about "Women and governance". Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Potential new article

Hi all! I'm writing to present the idea of creating a new article about the gender inequalities in positions of power and how women are so vastly underrepresented in positions of power in many areas including government but also industry, international organizations, science, academia, even sports and popular culture. I'm writing on this page because I think it is one of the most highly related topics that there's already a Wikipedia page covering. I would be doing so as a part of a class assignment. Check out my user page for more information.

Cnicholson12 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition Section

Should there, perhaps, be an opposition section? There are sections of the world where those in and out of power, depending on what is meant by power, don't think that women should be involved in politics. Would it be worth doing research on the reasonings why this position is held, or would such a section just be a target for vandalism? 67.208.5.162 (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An opposition section would be awesome.Dvalentine (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made and will continue to make some somewhat significant modifications to this article

On behalf of WikiProject Feminism, given that this article is Top-Importance in WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Gender Studies, and WikiProject Women's History, and that it rated C-class, I have decided to concentrate my efforts on fixing some of the problems with this article. Any help would be appreciated, and discussion of my edits should go here. Dvalentine (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in government prolongs post-conflict peace

A new study in the Journal of Politics finds that greater female representation reduces the risk of conflict recurrence[1]. I'm not sure where to place this text, but it definitely belongs in this article. Can you assist, User:The_Vintage_Feminist? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added it to the further reading section of Conflict resolution. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New info in the challenges faced by women section

In this section I added information specifically about representation of women in American government. I included info about what fields they represent and the small percentage of positions of power they hold. AfWill (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Fixed Under Social and Cultural Barriers to Mirror Representation

There was a grammar mistake in the last sentence under Balancing Work and Family in this section. AfWill (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender Quota" redirect

Why does it redirect here? Gender quotas exist outside just government positions. Xanikk999 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in government office

I added information under this heading to provide statistical reasoning as to why U.S. citizens might see less women in government as opposed to men Dizzyturtle (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Dizzyturtle I am looking to add a subheading for this topic that discusses the challenges a woman faces while pursuing a position in government office, rather than focusing on what takes place when a woman is currently upholding that position. I believe that discussing the causes more than the effects will provide insight for the facts on this page. I am open to suggestions on what to name the heading as well as some factors to look into during my research :) Dizzyturtle (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Dizzyturtle[reply]

Normative stance on Gender Quotas

I added a NPOV on Gender Quotas, for the section lacks fundamental discussion of both the empirical data available and the controversies sorrounding the use of quotas, in politics and elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.74.242 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UAE

UAE women in parliament 50%??? Where is the ref Nlivataye (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source is referenced in the article. You can see on the UAE Federal National Council list of members that there are 20 women out of 40. Wantok (toktok)

Do gender quotas for women in government deserve their own wikipedia page?

At this point over 50 countries have policies that mandate the selection or election of women candidates for office? Do they deserve their own wikipedia page? DZOBrien (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to 'Challenges Faced by Women' subsection:

I think that the Challenges Faced by Women subsection is missing a significant amount of information. The subsection only covers society, systemic challenges, personal life choices, and political parties as reasons why women face obstacles in obtaining government positions, but fails to include other reasons such as voter bias, elite support, and lack of resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelleadeyinka (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flaw in the article?

The article says, quote:

"In 2021 Estonia became the first country to have both a female elected head of state and elected head of government.[10] (If you only consider countries where the head of state is directly elected, than the first country to have both an elected female head of state and an elected female head of government is Moldova, also in 2021)".

End quote. But what about Finland in 2003, when Anneli Jäätteenmäki was prime minister and Tarja Halonen was president? --Aciram (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Politics in Global Perspective

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 26 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ivy&Fern2003 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sefinkel, Gpol643.

— Assignment last updated by A.lejla (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

== I want to add more information to this article==. I have gotten the following references to use. 1. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatrice Ewa (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Women_in_government"