Category talk:Women writers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] CFD

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Currently underway at CFD Relist from DRV on 2007 March 23 Delete in a specific CFD on 2007 January 27 No consensus in a broader CFD discussion on 2006 July 27

[edit] Category should be reinstated

Despite what the above template says about the discussion being inconclusive, the category "women writers" has been removed. However, I would argue that it should be reinstated. It represents a legitimate sub-section of literary study, widely recognized. Despite what some have said it is a useful category, not just in academia but on Wikipedia as well. Just look at the number of lists of women's writing various Wikipedia editors have initiated and spend time building. I find it astonishing that the main category of "writers" has such an extensive list of subcategories but this, a major field, has been removed. One can claim that gender has nothing to do with publication, as some have done, but this flies in the face of accepted literary history. The reclamation of women's writing has been a major task of literary scholars, and the task is still ongoing. Only someone completely ignorant of literary history would think that women writers have historically had equal access to publication. Major publishing houses produce series of women's texts; universities recognize women's writing as a specific and discrete field of study; tens of thousands of pages of books and articles have been devoted to studying women's writing, AS women's writing. By removing the category we risk losing credibility. And we risk looking politically reactionary, by not reflecting the state of the field of literary history as it is generally practiced. Some may think having a "women writers" category does not reflect a neutral point of view -- that it is "feminist" -- but I think removing it means that the neutral POV is at risk. I would argue for a reinstatement of the category. scribblingwoman 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. We have categories that divide writers and authors depending on race, nationality, and genre; why not gender? Some people argue that it is too broad a field, but they are missing the point. Women writers should be recognized as being worthy of categorization, not only because of its importance to Women Studies, but because of its historical value to the field of literature. Speaking as someone who has taken numerous Women Lit classes, I definitely agree that this category should be reinstated. María: (habla ~ cosas) 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this category deletion as an unfortunate oversight. “Women’s writing” and “women writers” are accepted areas of study at many academic institutions and literary circles, why not at Wikipedia? It appears the recent debate didn’t consider at least one of Wikipedia’s guidelines about creating or keeping a useful category: “the basic criterion for such a category" based on gender, race, or sexuality, "is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources.” (See: Gender, race, sexuality categorization) Indeed, the field of women’s writing has been established as academically, culturally, and historically significant; and there are countless external sources to verify it. Therefore, the category "Women writers" should be provided as a valuable navigational tool at Wikipedia. I also sincerely hope that the deletion can be reconsidered and that the category can be renewed.--Susiebowers 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to the appeal against this category deletion. Women's literature is, as Susiebowers has remarked, extremely well-established as an academically and culturally significant category outside Wikipedia - for example, in hundreds if not thousands of university courses. That it is a category which could usefully be broken down seems awfully insufficient reason to delete it entirely. Dsp13 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an immensely useful category - it seems odd to eliminate a category that is the subject of so much particular and focused academic work. Sam 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I notice that "Women authors" is a Library of Congress classification (see also here). scribblingwoman 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of the excellent reasons above to reinstate the category. Moreover, over 700 instutions around the world (at least) offer degrees in women's studies or gender studies (see http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/programs.html), including, for what it's worth, every Ivy League university. Perhaps someday we will be able to combine categories and search for eighteenth-century writer and woman writer, for example? Awadewit 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to CFD

Please note that after the deletion review concluded without consensus, this category has been relisted at CfD: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Women_writers.

Readers may also be interested that Category:Women poets was deleted last year: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5#Category:Women_poets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't known that. scribblingwoman (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is a group of regular contributors to CFD who will try to delete on sight any category of women by occupation, usually without any reference to policies or guidelines. If this category survives the second CFD, I expect that its sub-categories will inevitably be brought to CFD soon, to face the usual barrage of inaccurate claims of "we don't categorise by gender".

However, I think if that Category:Women writers survives, a deletion review will be needed for Category:Women poets. It makes no sense to have categories for women novelists, short story writers, and essayists, but not poets. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)