Talk:Feminism in Russia

DYK nomination

This article is currently being nominated for DYK (by me), and the template told me to leave this here. So, here:

Accedietalk to me 00:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This article was edited as part of an edit-a-thon

	This article was edited as part of the San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon. The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editor's & a healthy environment, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! Sarah (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Interesting article, looks like it's in pretty good shape for the most part, I have a few comments I can offer about possible improvements:

• "The first Russian feminist organization of the 19th century is considered to be the "Decembrist women."" Generally, you want to attribute statements like this, instead of using "is considered to be". Even if it's just, "Most historians consider the "Decembrist women" to be the first Russian feminist organization of the 19th century.
• "She was also a founding member of the Russian Women's Mutual Philanthropic Society and responsible for helping to organize the All-Women's Congress of 1908." Anything to link to here?
• "The 1917 Revolution, catalyzed in part by women workers' demonstrations, generated a surge of membership in the organization, and in 1917, because of their continued lobbying, Russia became the first major world power to grant women the right to vote." Might want to try to avoid stating the year twice in one sentence here.
• Usually we don't use retrieval dates for books, and do use them for Newspaper websites.
• Make sure that date formats are consistent, "The New York Times March 9, 2003." vs "Forbes 14 June 2012."
• You have "Forbes" italicized in notes but not in references.
• Maybe add another image, perhaps in the origins section.
• I think some more information about Feminist positions in Russia might be helpful. In know the U.S. birth control and abortion availability were very big issues for 20th century feminism, was that true in Russia, as well?
• Are there any notable Feminist literary movements/critics? i.e. Feminist reading of Anna Karenina etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I took care of the nikkimaria-proofing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Moлoдца!

Nice work. I was wondering, maybe, if the Soviet Union section could be the seed of a separate Feminism in the Soviet Union article, perhaps for another edit-a-thon? There is certainly a lot to write there, and a lot of sources, about the gap between rhetoric and reality. In fact, the current article could use, as a way of illustrating that, a joke from that era that Hedrick Smith reported in his classic The Russians (which has a whole chapter on women in Russian culture):

Q: Why are Soviet women freer than capitalist women?
A: Because capitalist women have to work all day and then come home and cook and clean and take care of the kids, while Soviet women work all day, come home and cook and clean and take care of the kids and build socialism.

If I had an exact page ref, I'd put it in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback!

RE: Feminism in the USSR, yes, absolutely! Most of these sections are huge enough in scope to fill a whole article. I was just hoping to break the ground and sow the seed with this one, to speak in kolkhoz-worthy metaphor :) I'll get to fleshing the topic out one of these days. And I'm definitely interested in hunting down the exact ref for that joke now. Anybody who gets there first, feel free to add it in! Accedie^{talk to me} 21:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I put it in there now, along with a pic of a propaganda poster (How could we not?) Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh, that's so perfect. Thank you :) Now I just need to canvas a few more E. European specialists to help get this to GA... Know anyone off the top of your head who might be able to lend a hand and a few more refs? (P.S., I didn't get a chance to talk to you too much, but it was good to see you at Wikimania! You came to my & Steven's talk on editor motivations. Thanks for your participation there and at Oliver's panel beforehand.) Accedie^{talk to me} 01:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why so much joy? This article is essentially nothing other than propaganda with the anti-soviet bias199.167.145.47 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia: making Internet cranks angry since 2001! w00t! Accedie^{talk to me} 05:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that half of that section relies on Hedrick Smith's book. And it's not even explicitly about feminism in Russia (Soviet Union). It could be a little more neutral. And what he writes must be atribbuted, not presented as fact. I'll try to fix that a little.5.12.221.176 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, this part of the article about feminism and the USSR is simply based on the prejudiced opinion of the same feminist Ekaterina Alexandrova, who is difficult to perceive separately from her personal feminist methodology, or the same Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was often caught lying in the Gulag archipelago, where he greatly inflated the numbers of Stalinist repressions and in general the number of victims of the Soviet regime, or where he said that allegedly in the USSR when he was a writer, he lived very poorly and almost begged, which turned out to be untrue and the publicist Ostrovsky in his book about Solzhenitsyn proved that he was lying, since he himself there were several dachas, garages and cars and an income of tens of thousands of rubles, which is quite a lot for the Soviet Union of that time, and in the article there are many references to the book by Hedrick Smith, which he wrote based on his work (in 1971-1974) as the head Moscow bureau of the New York Times, since he did not have access to the whole country and was based on his personal impressions of t of a three-year life in Moscow, he also did not have access to data and research on this issue (which at that time for the most part did not exist) therefore it is difficult to take it as a serious evidence base, well, there are also a number of strange statements in the article about the fact that in the USSR there was an additional level in the household, what is it all about, the fact that a huge number of women combined both work and housekeeping is true, but there didn’t seem to be any additional household duties, as I know, and much more in this article is controversial statement 37.54.230.242 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Feminism in Russia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Fine
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fine
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

• "shifted their focus from philanthropic works to organizing among peasants and factory workers." - Organizing among or just plain organizing?

I prefer "organizing among," just to avoid political jargon (you have to come from a labor organizing background to understand the distinction between general organizing, i.e., making people more organized, and political organizing, i.e., forming labor unions and such). Accedie^{talk to me} 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "feminist lobbying gained suffrage" - gained... perhaps earned?

Doesn't "earned" imply that suffrage is a privilege, not a right? :-P Accedie^{talk to me} 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't think of it that way. However, I feel "gained" suggests it was easy to do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Possible undue weight on Pussy Riot in the lede.

 Done - agreed, it's exciting right now but too presentist for a neutral lede. Accedie^{talk to me} 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Emperor or Czar?

Ack, I thought I fixed that! It should be emperor consistently. Will do. Accedie^{talk to me} 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The 1917 Revolution, catalyzed in part by women workers' demonstrations, generated a surge of membership in the organization, and in the same year, because of the society's continued lobbying, Russia became the first major world power to grant women the right to vote." - A little long, perhaps split?

 Done - Sorry, I come from an academic writing background; if there aren't 34325 clauses in one sentence, ur doing it wrong! Heh. Accedie^{talk to me} 05:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've got the same problem sometimes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• theories that underlay Soviet communism - It's defunct; is underlay or underlaid better?

 Done - good point! Accedie^{talk to me} 05:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• less - Shouldn't emphasise something willy-nilly. Perhaps remove the italics?

 Done - yup. Accedie^{talk to me} 05:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I did a copyedit, be sure to double check.

2

• I strongly recommend archiving your news links with www.webcitation.org . You never know when they'll die.

3

• For further development, I suggest you take a look at feminist publications and films, or works which deal mostly with women's issues (I'm sure Russia has some... Indonesia has tons, as does Canada and the US)

6

• How is File:Womanpower logo.svg free? I've nominated it for deletion.

No idea. Accedie^{talk to me} 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Natalia Dolgorukova.JPG needs an English descriptor and a US public domain tag. It can't be PD-70 if the author is unknown. It should be {{PD-Russia}} and {{PD-1923}}

 Done Accedie^{talk to me} 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Anna Filosofova 2.jpg needs an English descriptor and a proper license. It can't be PD-70 if the author is unknown. Needs proof of publication to use {{PD-Russia}} (not sure how unpublished anonymous works are treated). For US tag, can use {{PD-US-unpublished}} or {{PD-1996}}

I found another picture of her on Commons, which looks a lot less shady than that other one – it actually has the author's name (he died in 1903) and location of the original! I'm not sure I added the right tags, though. Help? Accedie^{talk to me} 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Митинг на Невском проспекте (1917).jpg needs a proper license. It can't be PD-70 if the author is unknown. Proof of publication is needed to use {{PD-Russia}} and {{PD-1923}}.

Yeah, this one might have to go. A shame; it's a really great image. Accedie^{talk to me} 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Poster23.jpg needs the year of publication to prove it's public domain. Must be before 1946 to be eligible for use on Commons and Wikipedia, as it has to be PD in the US.

Sigh, this too. I'll take it out. Accedie^{talk to me} 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Kitchen and fashion - that's NOT freedom.jpg is fine.

• I'm not a Commons person and certainly no expert in license or copyright, so I'll defer to expert judgment here. I can fix the Dolgorukova image for sure; not sure about the rest (though I'll give it the old college try to figure out licensing stuff), but I'm okay with removing them if they're really untenable. Accedie^{talk to me} 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Worse comes to worse Filosofova could be uploaded locally because it's PD in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I added this to the Revolution/Soviet section instead of the two questionable ones you pointed out. Looks like a pretty safe bet to me, but what do I know? :) Accedie^{talk to me} 18:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

Based on this revision

• FN1 - Fine. Perhaps note the lawyer was a woman (more oomph)

 Done - It looks slightly... not neutral to do that, but I agree that it's an important point. I wish I knew her name so I could avoid any ambiguity/POV there, but the source doesn't say. Accedie^{talk to me} 05:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps "female lawyer" instead of "lawyer (a woman)"?

Erg. That variant is definitely not neutral and rather insulting, since it implies the default lawyer (or doctor, writer, any other profession) is male, and a woman practicing in the field has to be distinguished by her gender. I know in this instance it would actually be used in a subtly different and important qualifying way, but on sheer principle I just can't bring myself to do it. Damn you, systemic bias! Accedie^{talk to me} 06:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps try to dig up another source with her name? That would allow for a use without parentheticals and without the possibility for misinterpretation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I suggested changing it primarily because I hate parentheticals pretty badly (except for translations) — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Me too. It was the least-bad option I could think of, but a name would be best. Ok, will work on that and the image stuff tomorrow, as it is long past my bedtime. Thanks, Crisco :) Accedie^{talk to me} 06:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, cheers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - The Guardian comes through! Accedie^{talk to me} 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• FN25 - Fine.
• AGF on offline sources.

Further discussion

• On hold, mostly for the image issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The new images look fine. Passing as a GA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Highest female managers percentage worldwide

The article fails to mention the fact that Russia has the highest female percentage in management in the world at 40+ per cent. There are a lot of reliable sources for this claim, one can easily find them online. This should be included I guess. 46.39.230.124 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above comment. If it is true that there is a high level of women in management in Russia, then, on balance, it probably is worthy of mention. Redaction101 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Soviet period

The page describes mostly average life of a woman in a city/town - work, shopping. Other cases:

• female prisoners [1]
• female soldiers (War’s Unwomanly Face by Svetlana Alexievich)
• female workers in women towns
• kolkhos women
• Centarl Asian women.Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Church and feminism

An interesting source I've located is the New York Times of 13 April 2013, and this indicates that it was Patriarch Kirill of Moscow who criticized feminism. Should this fact be included in this article? BTW, I am aware that this doesn't of itself mean that all of the Russian Orthodox Church is antagonistic to feminism. I strongly suspect that there are learned theologians within Russian Orthodoxy who would take a more enlightened view. I've yet to look into this. But the Patriarch is still an important leader, and perhaps his view should be included in the article. Redaction101 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)