![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This title was originally a redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships, expanded in 2005 to a disambiguation page pointing to topics related to the literal meaning of the phrase ( Gold mine, Gold prospecting) as well as the slang term. In 2008 it was returned to a redirect; by that time Gold digger had emerged as the disambiguation page.
In 2014 User:JackofDiamonds1 replaced the redirect with an explanation of the slang term. In 2016 User:Dwarf Kirlston mentioned the Gold digging page on Gold digger. In 2017 I redirected Gold digging to Gold mining, where I also added a hatnote directing to the Gold digger disambiguation. Shortly thereafter, User:Editor2020 reverted my changes without additional comment.
The current content seems to run afoul of two Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Verifiability. (Although verifiability could presumably be remedied by citing slang dictionaries or the like, I think such changes would themselves run afoul of the exclusion of dictionary content and the spirit of Wikipedia:Notability; see WP:WORDISSUBJECT.)
Presumably other editors disagree with me. I think it's best to discuss here rather than spread it over various talk and user-talk pages. What say you? Cnilep ( talk) 04:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Editor2020:I object to your edit [1], not all of it, just transactional being blue linked to "Transactional sex" - Sex might not be involved in gold digging, and transactional does not only refer to "mistress"/"lover" situations. Romantic sexless relationships can still be gold digging, and still be "transactional relationships". However other blue links don't seem very appropriate either. Financial transaction, Business don't seem very appropriate. The closest I could find that had the same general meaning was Quid pro quo - but I think maybe best is just leaving it without a blue link. What do you think?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@ AlAboos: I would like to discuss this edit [2] believe it is indeed related to a stereotype the idea that gold diggers are women, or that women are gold diggers. It's not merely that women are the "usual" tipification, but that men maybe even can't or couldn't be "gold diggers", that a different word would have to be used: like "fortune hunters" for example.
I searched around for "male gold digger" and found this article in forbes [3]. So it seems males can be identified as gold diggers as well.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Dwarf Kirlston: Thank you for reaching out to a rookie Wikipedia enthusiast. I understand that we are moving away from gender stereotypes in general, but gold digger has always been associated with women due to social injustices women experienced over the past several centuries. I am confident there are cases of male gold diggers, but they are not as many cases to qualify both genders as such. Fortune hunter is a different coined term and perhaps needs its own page. It is not as familiar as gold digger to begin with nor does it trigger the same reaction - it sounds more like people looking for oil in public land to me. I think it is important that we do not let our opinions redefine words beyond what they mean for both genders. AlAboos ( talk) 20:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)alaboos
@ Dwarf Kirlston: I rather have stereotypical removed but will not object if it stays. It will not in any way change its meaning for the reader.
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move Gold digging and no consensus to move Gold digger at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
– The page describes characters commonly known as "gold diggers", so this would be a more accurate name. Gold digging should be a disambiguation page, most likely. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 02:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested. "Gold digger" had to be moved, and WP:DIFFCAPS supported the proposed destination "Gold Digger"; no supporting reasons were given for the alternative "Gold digger (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
– I have edited the article to address the concerns in the previous RM that it is about the relationship rather than the person. I think it makes the most sense to name the article about the person rather than the action. The disambiguation page would be moved per WP:DIFFCAPS. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Dicklyon, regarding this, this, this and this, societal bias forms definitions. This term is almost always used to refer to women, and that should be reflected in the short description. Yes, short descriptions should be short, but they should also be accurate. Simply stating "a person" without "typically a woman" is not accurate enough, just like it wouldn't be for the first sentence of the introduction, as it leads readers to believe that this term is applied to men (or even non-binary people) just as much as it's applied to women. It obviously isn't. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
By contrast, the short description for the Bitch (slang) article that I referenced in my edit summary states, "Pejorative slang word for a person, usually a woman." Short and accurate. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that the lead and short description should include "is a person, typically a woman" instead of "is a person".
Should the lead and short description include "is a person, typically a woman" instead of "is a person"? Or should the lead only include "is a person, typically a woman," and the short description not mention gender? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
CardamomEnthusiast,
Chmw8,
Dsgm3r (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
SophieVMoon,
Elawson123,
Karleeseek,
MichalyLong,
Bem2c4,
Elaineamery,
Jcrg34,
Kailynhill721.
— Assignment last updated by Cjcarney ( talk) 19:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced claim about the significance of Kanye’s song. However, I left the image in. Viriditas ( talk) 03:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This title was originally a redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships, expanded in 2005 to a disambiguation page pointing to topics related to the literal meaning of the phrase ( Gold mine, Gold prospecting) as well as the slang term. In 2008 it was returned to a redirect; by that time Gold digger had emerged as the disambiguation page.
In 2014 User:JackofDiamonds1 replaced the redirect with an explanation of the slang term. In 2016 User:Dwarf Kirlston mentioned the Gold digging page on Gold digger. In 2017 I redirected Gold digging to Gold mining, where I also added a hatnote directing to the Gold digger disambiguation. Shortly thereafter, User:Editor2020 reverted my changes without additional comment.
The current content seems to run afoul of two Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Verifiability. (Although verifiability could presumably be remedied by citing slang dictionaries or the like, I think such changes would themselves run afoul of the exclusion of dictionary content and the spirit of Wikipedia:Notability; see WP:WORDISSUBJECT.)
Presumably other editors disagree with me. I think it's best to discuss here rather than spread it over various talk and user-talk pages. What say you? Cnilep ( talk) 04:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Editor2020:I object to your edit [1], not all of it, just transactional being blue linked to "Transactional sex" - Sex might not be involved in gold digging, and transactional does not only refer to "mistress"/"lover" situations. Romantic sexless relationships can still be gold digging, and still be "transactional relationships". However other blue links don't seem very appropriate either. Financial transaction, Business don't seem very appropriate. The closest I could find that had the same general meaning was Quid pro quo - but I think maybe best is just leaving it without a blue link. What do you think?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@ AlAboos: I would like to discuss this edit [2] believe it is indeed related to a stereotype the idea that gold diggers are women, or that women are gold diggers. It's not merely that women are the "usual" tipification, but that men maybe even can't or couldn't be "gold diggers", that a different word would have to be used: like "fortune hunters" for example.
I searched around for "male gold digger" and found this article in forbes [3]. So it seems males can be identified as gold diggers as well.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Dwarf Kirlston: Thank you for reaching out to a rookie Wikipedia enthusiast. I understand that we are moving away from gender stereotypes in general, but gold digger has always been associated with women due to social injustices women experienced over the past several centuries. I am confident there are cases of male gold diggers, but they are not as many cases to qualify both genders as such. Fortune hunter is a different coined term and perhaps needs its own page. It is not as familiar as gold digger to begin with nor does it trigger the same reaction - it sounds more like people looking for oil in public land to me. I think it is important that we do not let our opinions redefine words beyond what they mean for both genders. AlAboos ( talk) 20:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)alaboos
@ Dwarf Kirlston: I rather have stereotypical removed but will not object if it stays. It will not in any way change its meaning for the reader.
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move Gold digging and no consensus to move Gold digger at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
– The page describes characters commonly known as "gold diggers", so this would be a more accurate name. Gold digging should be a disambiguation page, most likely. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 02:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested. "Gold digger" had to be moved, and WP:DIFFCAPS supported the proposed destination "Gold Digger"; no supporting reasons were given for the alternative "Gold digger (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
– I have edited the article to address the concerns in the previous RM that it is about the relationship rather than the person. I think it makes the most sense to name the article about the person rather than the action. The disambiguation page would be moved per WP:DIFFCAPS. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Dicklyon, regarding this, this, this and this, societal bias forms definitions. This term is almost always used to refer to women, and that should be reflected in the short description. Yes, short descriptions should be short, but they should also be accurate. Simply stating "a person" without "typically a woman" is not accurate enough, just like it wouldn't be for the first sentence of the introduction, as it leads readers to believe that this term is applied to men (or even non-binary people) just as much as it's applied to women. It obviously isn't. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
By contrast, the short description for the Bitch (slang) article that I referenced in my edit summary states, "Pejorative slang word for a person, usually a woman." Short and accurate. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that the lead and short description should include "is a person, typically a woman" instead of "is a person".
Should the lead and short description include "is a person, typically a woman" instead of "is a person"? Or should the lead only include "is a person, typically a woman," and the short description not mention gender? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
CardamomEnthusiast,
Chmw8,
Dsgm3r (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
SophieVMoon,
Elawson123,
Karleeseek,
MichalyLong,
Bem2c4,
Elaineamery,
Jcrg34,
Kailynhill721.
— Assignment last updated by Cjcarney ( talk) 19:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced claim about the significance of Kanye’s song. However, I left the image in. Viriditas ( talk) 03:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)