Template talk:Feminism

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Feminism This template is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism

I am really liking how all three of the feminism templates look. Thanks for adding up the Portal:Feminism link as well. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

T'weren't nothin'. My goddess told me to do it. ;) -Yamara ✉ 05:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the dark blue of the link color quite difficult to read on the dark purple background. I notice that the link is white -- does anyone have objections to the header and footer being put in white also? How does one do that anyway? See a contrast readability checker, which the current color combo failed, both unvisited and visited links (blue and purple).

This is also a problem on {{Feminism sidebar}}, with both the show/hide options and the link to Women's suffrage.

The ideal color combination for accessibility is dark text on light background rather than light on dark, iirc, but I dunno. If others find it pressing, maybe we could think about that too. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the history of the template; the earlier color combination was a light peach, which worked better. Otherwise, just use the default (a light blue-gray). Kellen^T 01:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the custom color scheme; as with other custom navbox color schemes, it serves no encyclopedic purpose, and acts only as decoration that actually makes the navbox less accessible to vision-impaired users. -- The Anome (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite see how a specific political phrase in the U.S. with over-arching breadth to mean whatever the particular topic of the day is amounts to a concept. It's very geographically specific to the U.S. and charged rhetoric, not a defining concept of an ideology. Every criticism that is described as "War on Women" is really covered in other places such as abortion rights, equal pay, etc. Really, it's a political slogan for "Anti-feminism" but in the U.S. "anti-feminist" is not as negative an identity so a more virulent expression was created to replace it in the U.S. It should be removed as it's not a particular concept of feminism. Comment? --DHeyward (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In the template, Kurdish feminism is put in the subsection "Indigenous" of "Ethnic/Racial". However, I fail to see how the Kurdish people, or any people, could be qualified as "indigenous" outside of a colonial context. Would Kurdish people be indigenous as opposed to Turks ? Arabs ? Persians ? While the first two may have arrived in the region recently (albeit about 14 centuries ago, and it's very debatable to say that they "arrived" in the same way Europeans arrived in America and separated themselves from the local population), the Persians have been there since forever in written history.

Moreover, a comparable situation would be to say of the Basques that they are native as opposed to the French and Spanish, or the Celts as opposed to the English. No one would say that the Basques and Celts are "native peoples".

If you stick to the definitions used in this article Indigenous_peoples, Kurdish people are not "indigenous" as heard in a political context. 2A01:E34:EC97:6C10:24FB:1D2:F662:DCDB (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)