This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
You are invited to comment at
Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names where there's an issue about naming; the article (which is currently a FA) refers to its female subject by her first name throughout "for simplicity". I'm struggling to think of any articles on male subjects which follow a similar practice. Any input is welcome.
John (
talk)
17:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There's lots of news on Moira Donegan including stories by NPR and the NY Times and by MD herself. There was a fear of outing expressed by her, but that boat seems to have left the dock. Any feedback welcomed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I've started a Request for Comment on Talk:Carolina Nairne#Request for comment on how to refer to the article subject: How should the article refer to its subject, Carolina Oliphant, Lady Nairne, after the initial mention of her full name? Comments are sought. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Limor Blockman has been relisted today to try to get some comments. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I put in a merger request over a month ago for Justice for Men and Boys (UK policical party) to be moved into a sub-section of Mike Buchanan (politician) (he is leader of the party) discussion here. I thought it might be viewed as controversial but it doesn't seem to be, is there anyone who is good at moving pages who could go ahead and do it? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Parenting. Cheers! Mvolz ( talk) 08:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC at WT:Wikipe-tan#RFC that may be of interest. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 18:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender#Major update needed for Romance languages
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page. Alanna the Brave ( talk) 23:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi I have been discussing the above subject here with a member of this project, User:Stuartyeates who has been doing sterling work in closing the gap. They have created a large number of articles on NZ women in science and since the begining of this year has been starting the articles with a phrase such as "They are currently a full professor at the Lincoln University" and then used the pronoun "she" later on in the article. recently they have gone on to only using "they". As a new pages patroller I came across a few of these articles and was surprised to see this usage which as per MOS:GENDERID was not backed up by any sources used because "they" is usually reserved for specific people that do not identify with binary as per Singular_they#Contemporary_usage. Stuartyeates' argument for using "they" was that it is common in NZ but another kiwi editor contested this and even if this is true as per WP:SURPRISE we should make sure that information is easily understood by most.
My main concern over and above the grammar question is that by removing the female pronouns we are lessening the impact on closing the gap. Quite a few of the articles created by Stuartyeates are for NZ female academics that do not have easily gender-identifiable names for the majority of readers such as Sandhya Samarasinghe, Rukmani Gounder, Snejina Michailova, Toni Bruce, Gail Pacheco or Lesley McCowan etc. They have now moved to removing all pronouns. For stub articles such as Sandhya Samarasinghe this is not too shocking but for longer articles this will become problematic I think. I had a look at Wikipedia:Writing_about_women and gender neutral language is suggested for generic subjects such as job titles but nothing is mentioned about specific people. I am worried that by systematically removing gender from articles about women we are being counter-productive in closing the gender gap. Does anyone have an opinion on this? -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's be clear here, that I've never reverted let alone edit warred over this and only used it in articles where I am the only editor involved, either in the first edit or immediately afterwards cleaning up loose ends. A number of these articles have been tagged for notability, of these only Maryanne Garry has been taken to AfD; it currently have five independent keep votes. Stuartyeates ( talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Not convinced but says he won't revert us if we do it. Looks like we have two choices: edit the articles ourselves to put in "she", or make it so he can't make more articles. To me, the choice seems obvious, his contributions are valuable. If no one else will do it, I can take a pronoun-fix pass every week or two. Thank you for your work Stuart. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
"Jane Doe is a New Zealand Teapot Studies academic. She is currently a full professor at Wassamatta University. [1] After a 1999 PhD titled ' Optimal teabags per teapot ratio ' at Haye University, [2] she moved to Wassamatta, rising to full professor."
Which notability criteria in WP:NACADEMIC are you basing the creation of these articles on? They are almost all identical in structure and most have not received a highly prestigious honour and do not have named chair positions most of those that are fellows are of societies that do not reserve that position as a highly selective honour and have not held a highest level admin post. All the other criteria need strong sources to show they meet them. I believe flooding WP with articles about non notable women is actually damaging to the idea of closing the gender gap. The aim is not just to have more articles on women but to create the articles about notable women. A good number of your creations will end up getting sent to Afd and because you have identified them as being created following a meetup this will discredit the work done by the members.
If we look at your last effort here you will have to admit that it is pretty poor. It is missing all the basic information that one would expect in an article about a notable person DOB early life place of birth etc. The lack of this kind of info shows one of 2 things a: this a quick stub article from an inexperienced or lazy editor or b: the info isn't out there because there are very few sources that have written about them because they are not notable enough.
In the lead you mix up "is" and "are", you can't remove the pronoun and leave "are". There is a single source that is affiliated and you haven't taken the time to fill it in.
The academic career section mentions her PhD thesis and the fact that she is a full professor on staff and that is it. You really can't pretend that this shows that she meets NACADEMIC can you?
I am pretty sure that if this is taken to ANI there is a very good chance that the community will decide that you have to go through AFC for all the articles that you create. This has already happened for an editor that was creating aalarge number of stub articles that were ending up at afd. Dom from Paris ( talk) 05:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.
The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:
Sitewide blocks effect on a user
Partial block’s effect on the affected users
Partial block’s success as a tool
In particular, I would like to learn from people familiar with the gender gap on Wikipedia their ideas about how we can measure if partial blocks will increase or decrease systemic bias in articles. How will we know if partial blocks increases of decreases the ability of women or people who identify as binary to add relevant content to Wikipedia articles? Talk to us on Meta to join the larger discussion. Or I will be monitoring comments on this page. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 15:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone here would like to comment, there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#DYK current about a hook that was on the main page (now removed) quoting a description of Lady Angela Forbes as "an elderly gorilla afflicted with sex appeal". SarahSV (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion has been removed from that page, because the hook is no longer on the main page. See DYK talk here for a link. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
A remarkable song in its own way. It's been banned on a few radio stations and it looks like a national controversy. Please see the talk page there. Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I have not enclosed the section title in quotation marks only because that sometimes causes problems.
I have recently been involved in a discussion at WP:BLPN about a living person who is also female. She's an actor, model, television host, author, and screenwriter.
On viewing the article, I raised some disagreements about the lede, so I have an involvement and a bias here. Anyway, another section of the lede says that she "then parlayed her Playboy fame into a television and film acting career starting as a co-host on..." -- the lede then mentions the TV show and goes on to list a series of other TV shows, numerous movies in which she was an actor, etc. From my limited understanding, there is no sourced content in the article linking her subsequent acting career as having been launched due to her initial (nude) modelling career.
I would be interested in whether those reading this noticeboard consider this wording regarding a female actor to be helpful in bridging the gender gap, how we encourage female editors and how we write about female subjects. Do male actors "parlay" fame in one field into paying jobs in related fields? Do we describe it in that way?
Since it would be tiresome of me not to mention the article name, it's Jenny McCarthy -- you may also wish to consider whether its current state merits B-class. MPS1992 ( talk) 02:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
For anyone interested, please see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 22 March 2019. SarahSV (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A Request for Comment that may be relevant to this task force is open at Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment. Ibadibam ( talk) 05:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
So, recently I have mostly been editing 2018 missile strikes against Syria and Tham Luang cave rescue. In the first article, the relevance and active role of women is made clear early in the article; Theresa May is one of the key players, and Nikki Haley, Permanent US Representative at the UN, soon makes an appearance to reassure the world that the United States is "locked and loaded".
But in the second article, it appears that the first forty-six individually named persons in the article are all male, with no females, transgender or non-binary persons named at all in the entire article. (Please correct me if I have mis-counted -- this does include the rescued as well as the rescuers.) This is despite Sky News having broadcast interviews with the commander of the U.S. contingent who was female, and BBC News having broadcast several segments of footage with female volunteers at the rescue logistics camp. The female volunteers were engaged in activities such as cleaning and cooking. I am certain that there was also footage of mothers, sisters, and female classmates of the trapped persons, but only reactions from male persons are included in the article. The article mentions that over ten thousand persons were involved in the rescue.
First, is this appropriate coverage?
Second, is there a wider gender gap problem in speleology and related emergency rescue procedures? If so, is there anything that we can do to fix this?
The name of the cave itself, incidentally, means "Great Cave of the Sleeping Lady". MPS1992 ( talk) 03:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Gray has been kind enough to compile some data about BLPs, using Wikidata, and has written a fascinating blog post about it: Gender and deletion on Wikipedia. He has uploaded the graphs to Commons.
There have been questions recently about whether existing BLPs about women (BLPs that have not been deleted) were more likely to have been taken to AfD at some point. Andrew thinks that used to be true, but that things have recently levelled off. He wrote: "Female BLPs created 2009-16 appear noticeably more likely than male BLPs of equivalent age to have been through a deletion discussion at some point in their lives (and, presumably, all have been kept). Since 2016, this has changed and the two groups are about even."
Andrew, thank you for putting all this together. And many thanks to RexxS too. SarahSV (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi all!
Are you curious about what tools are effective in reaching Women in Red’s goals? Are you interested in contributing to the building of scalable solutions for closing Wikipedia’s gender gap?
I’m with a group of researchers working on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents and thus to close the gender gap. We want to make sure you, as an important member of the community, can be heard as we build and refine these AIs.
We would like to invite you to a quick interview to share your thoughts about gender gaps on Wikipedia and the current efforts, as well as potential solutions to them. It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.
For more details about our project, please refer to our Wikipedia page here.
If you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon! Reply to this message here or send me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu and I can share more info and plan a time to connect. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"She" vs. "it" for ships. This is a perennial discussion that never seems to reach consensus. Notice of this round of discussion was sort of spammed to various ship- and military-related projects and pages (i.e., places of strong concentration of fans of using "she" for ships, and of male editors in particular), so I'm notifying some other wikiprojects and such that are apt to have wider views and demographics, for balance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor is nominating numerous articles about women footballers / soccer players who have played in top leagues in France and Sweden. The leagues most likely were included on WP:NFOOTY unbalanced list of notable leagues at the time of creation - and have since been removed but that's probably irrelevant here. Basically, many of the articles need improved referencing to meet WP:GNG.
If any editors have time to review and search for references that support WP:GNG and participate in deletion discussion if there is one, it is most appreciated. Here's the list:
Articles for deletion
Featured list candidates
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
A Wikimedia committee has posted a draft version of a Universal Code of Conduct at meta which, while it contains language about respecting the diversity of community members and condemning hate speech that appears in vandalism, does not appear to prohibit or otherwise mention racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of prejudice outside of vandalism and direct insults (in the English version, at least.) It does concern itself with, for example, defining repeated sarcasm as a form of harassment. In the page containing summaries of committee meetings the words "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" also do not appear. (In the English version.)
Perhaps there is a good or practical reason for this; I'm not personally familiar with the high-level Wikimedia policy development process. But the discussion of the UCoC draft closes on October 7, after which the drafting committee will submit its recommendation to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, so I am placing this message in this talk page in the hopes of ensuring that editors who can comment constructively on the absence of language providing guidance on non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of prejudice get a chance to comment. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression may qualify as insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.
JezGrove ( talk) 20:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone I wondered if the insertion of DOB for women may present a form of gender imbalance in that women are more likely than men to be the victims of ageism and accompanying discrimination, and may prefer not to have their ages registered on wikipedia? Is there any option for the subjects of articles to request that their age is occluded, for this reason? My apologies if this has already been debated. Many thanks and cheers, Miles Quest ( talk) 19:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply GorillaWarfare - will take a look - cheers Miles Quest ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Greta Thunberg's article starts with the Mental Health section. There is a discussion about whether it is appropriate, as the typical WP pattern for health disclosure is at the end of the article under the Health Section. Many prominent male figures had mental conditions that began to appear in childhood, but their articles do not start with the section titled Mental Health. I am yet to see another article on a well-known person (not a mental health advocate) that begins with the section titled Mental Health. However, if it exists, it doesn't appear objective. Please provide your inputs if you are interested to discuss this in her "talk" page. /info/en/?search=Greta_Thunberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partizan Kuzya ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
→Thank you!! Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
→Please discuss your thoughts on Thunberg's Talk page if you have any comments. Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 23:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for the supoort in restoring neutrality! Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 17:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I want to apologise if this is not the right forum to write this, but I am hoping to find support and more information. I'm a longtime editor but used to focus more on old (pre-1960s) pop culture/art articles. In the recent years, I've also 'branched out' to more recent pop culture articles, especially related to domestic abuse cases, such as the Amber Heard/ Johnny Depp case, and now, the Marilyn Manson case. Why I started doing this was because I noticed that whenever there's a woman who goes public with abuse allegations, the related WP articles seem to not represent the cases in a neutral way, but instead are often biased towards the person that is alleged to have been the abusive party. The line "innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court" seems to be often thrown around to prevent anything beyond a cursory mention of allegations, despite the fact that criminal convictions in domestic/intimate partner/child abuse cases are relatively rare due to multiple factors, none of which is that fake allegations would be prevalent. The same commitment to 'the truth' that makes editors block almost any mention of abuse allegations does often not go the other way, with almost any material that casts the accuser in a bad light being ok to add apparently.
Examples: the main editor of Manson's WP articles adding a section about Wood stating that Kobe Bryant was a rapist and wording it in a way that was misleading and deliberately made Wood look bad; the same user disputing Wood's statement that she was underage in an image and thus deleting this statement, and refusing to allow details of the allegations in the MM article; after Depp lost his libel case in the UK, editors seem to want to add minutiae on anti-Heard online petitions, or blatant attempts of Depp's team to smear her to the article... I can go on and give more details if you are interested. It also appears that quite a few Wikipedians seem to lose their ability to look at the big picture (e.g. the entire case from start to present day) or to have any basic source criticism when it comes to these articles. It also doesn't seem that many Wikipedians have any basic knowledge of domestic/intimate partner violence (e.g. that mutual abuse is rare but the abuser trying to frame self-defense as such is not; that fake allegations are very, very rare; that it's often difficult to take cases to court; that BDSM and abuse are different things entirely; that abusers can seem to be nice people to outsiders...), although of course this applies to the general population as well. Even in a case where there are multiple accusers making very serious allegations and politicians calling for a FBI investigation (e.g. Manson) or where the accusations have been proven in a civil court (Depp), it seems to be difficult to break through this bias.
Apologies if this is a bit rambling, but I guess I'm here to seek peer support and advice? Is there any type of Manual of Style for these types of cases? It would be great to discuss these issues with others as I often feel like the only editor trying to fight this bias in these articles, but I know I must not be alone. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Trying to make +1 for addressing systemic bias in academia: Talk:New moon § Separating sections: Lunisolar Calendar and Lunar Calendar Today is the second new moon of spring. We don't know this, because they refuse to feature this kind of content on the main page, accusing people like me of POV promoting a lunar religion, and suggesting that I'm WP:NOTHERE. We need to find points of intersection in this struggle. Lets get the new moon on the main page next month. Jaredscribe ( talk) 06:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a requested move at Gender bias on Wikipedia, to move to Sexism on Wikipedia. Please join the discussion. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 03:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC) (please ping me if you reply)
Hello, I would request input on the nomination of Template:Gender unclear for deletion. The reasons for deletion intersect with the goals of this WikiProject, with the template being claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders. The corresponding discussion may thus be of interest to this task force.
Template:Gender unclear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ExoticViolet ( talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ExoticViolet ( talk) 15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a BLPN thread concerning one of the women who has accused Donald Trump of rape, here. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I have just had 2 edits on snooker player Liang Wenbo reverted / watered down. Wenbo was convicted of assault on a woman ( BBC News article). I gave the information its own section and added a summary to the lead section.
The other editor (an admin) has changed it to a sub-section within "personal life" on the grounds that it is a "bit crazy for a full section" and removed it from the lead as "a bit heavy handed for a lede".
I know people are going to say discuss it / start a conversation on the talk page, but I really don't want to get into it, someone else will have to pick up the banner.
This evening (1 April 2022) ITV4's coverage of the Tour Championship 7.15pm, began with presenter Jill Douglas reading out of a statement by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association which read. "We (the WPBSA) were not aware of this incident and are very disappointed to read of such matters.
While we read that Wenbo has already been sentenced for this offence, we will now consider the position from our sport's disciplinary perspective. Again, we are extremely disappointed to read this news today." (also reported on France24).
If anyone wants to take another run at it with the extra refs then please do. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
You are invited to comment at
Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names where there's an issue about naming; the article (which is currently a FA) refers to its female subject by her first name throughout "for simplicity". I'm struggling to think of any articles on male subjects which follow a similar practice. Any input is welcome.
John (
talk)
17:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There's lots of news on Moira Donegan including stories by NPR and the NY Times and by MD herself. There was a fear of outing expressed by her, but that boat seems to have left the dock. Any feedback welcomed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I've started a Request for Comment on Talk:Carolina Nairne#Request for comment on how to refer to the article subject: How should the article refer to its subject, Carolina Oliphant, Lady Nairne, after the initial mention of her full name? Comments are sought. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Limor Blockman has been relisted today to try to get some comments. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I put in a merger request over a month ago for Justice for Men and Boys (UK policical party) to be moved into a sub-section of Mike Buchanan (politician) (he is leader of the party) discussion here. I thought it might be viewed as controversial but it doesn't seem to be, is there anyone who is good at moving pages who could go ahead and do it? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Parenting. Cheers! Mvolz ( talk) 08:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC at WT:Wikipe-tan#RFC that may be of interest. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 18:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender#Major update needed for Romance languages
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page. Alanna the Brave ( talk) 23:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi I have been discussing the above subject here with a member of this project, User:Stuartyeates who has been doing sterling work in closing the gap. They have created a large number of articles on NZ women in science and since the begining of this year has been starting the articles with a phrase such as "They are currently a full professor at the Lincoln University" and then used the pronoun "she" later on in the article. recently they have gone on to only using "they". As a new pages patroller I came across a few of these articles and was surprised to see this usage which as per MOS:GENDERID was not backed up by any sources used because "they" is usually reserved for specific people that do not identify with binary as per Singular_they#Contemporary_usage. Stuartyeates' argument for using "they" was that it is common in NZ but another kiwi editor contested this and even if this is true as per WP:SURPRISE we should make sure that information is easily understood by most.
My main concern over and above the grammar question is that by removing the female pronouns we are lessening the impact on closing the gap. Quite a few of the articles created by Stuartyeates are for NZ female academics that do not have easily gender-identifiable names for the majority of readers such as Sandhya Samarasinghe, Rukmani Gounder, Snejina Michailova, Toni Bruce, Gail Pacheco or Lesley McCowan etc. They have now moved to removing all pronouns. For stub articles such as Sandhya Samarasinghe this is not too shocking but for longer articles this will become problematic I think. I had a look at Wikipedia:Writing_about_women and gender neutral language is suggested for generic subjects such as job titles but nothing is mentioned about specific people. I am worried that by systematically removing gender from articles about women we are being counter-productive in closing the gender gap. Does anyone have an opinion on this? -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's be clear here, that I've never reverted let alone edit warred over this and only used it in articles where I am the only editor involved, either in the first edit or immediately afterwards cleaning up loose ends. A number of these articles have been tagged for notability, of these only Maryanne Garry has been taken to AfD; it currently have five independent keep votes. Stuartyeates ( talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Not convinced but says he won't revert us if we do it. Looks like we have two choices: edit the articles ourselves to put in "she", or make it so he can't make more articles. To me, the choice seems obvious, his contributions are valuable. If no one else will do it, I can take a pronoun-fix pass every week or two. Thank you for your work Stuart. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
"Jane Doe is a New Zealand Teapot Studies academic. She is currently a full professor at Wassamatta University. [1] After a 1999 PhD titled ' Optimal teabags per teapot ratio ' at Haye University, [2] she moved to Wassamatta, rising to full professor."
Which notability criteria in WP:NACADEMIC are you basing the creation of these articles on? They are almost all identical in structure and most have not received a highly prestigious honour and do not have named chair positions most of those that are fellows are of societies that do not reserve that position as a highly selective honour and have not held a highest level admin post. All the other criteria need strong sources to show they meet them. I believe flooding WP with articles about non notable women is actually damaging to the idea of closing the gender gap. The aim is not just to have more articles on women but to create the articles about notable women. A good number of your creations will end up getting sent to Afd and because you have identified them as being created following a meetup this will discredit the work done by the members.
If we look at your last effort here you will have to admit that it is pretty poor. It is missing all the basic information that one would expect in an article about a notable person DOB early life place of birth etc. The lack of this kind of info shows one of 2 things a: this a quick stub article from an inexperienced or lazy editor or b: the info isn't out there because there are very few sources that have written about them because they are not notable enough.
In the lead you mix up "is" and "are", you can't remove the pronoun and leave "are". There is a single source that is affiliated and you haven't taken the time to fill it in.
The academic career section mentions her PhD thesis and the fact that she is a full professor on staff and that is it. You really can't pretend that this shows that she meets NACADEMIC can you?
I am pretty sure that if this is taken to ANI there is a very good chance that the community will decide that you have to go through AFC for all the articles that you create. This has already happened for an editor that was creating aalarge number of stub articles that were ending up at afd. Dom from Paris ( talk) 05:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.
The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:
Sitewide blocks effect on a user
Partial block’s effect on the affected users
Partial block’s success as a tool
In particular, I would like to learn from people familiar with the gender gap on Wikipedia their ideas about how we can measure if partial blocks will increase or decrease systemic bias in articles. How will we know if partial blocks increases of decreases the ability of women or people who identify as binary to add relevant content to Wikipedia articles? Talk to us on Meta to join the larger discussion. Or I will be monitoring comments on this page. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 15:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone here would like to comment, there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#DYK current about a hook that was on the main page (now removed) quoting a description of Lady Angela Forbes as "an elderly gorilla afflicted with sex appeal". SarahSV (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion has been removed from that page, because the hook is no longer on the main page. See DYK talk here for a link. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
A remarkable song in its own way. It's been banned on a few radio stations and it looks like a national controversy. Please see the talk page there. Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I have not enclosed the section title in quotation marks only because that sometimes causes problems.
I have recently been involved in a discussion at WP:BLPN about a living person who is also female. She's an actor, model, television host, author, and screenwriter.
On viewing the article, I raised some disagreements about the lede, so I have an involvement and a bias here. Anyway, another section of the lede says that she "then parlayed her Playboy fame into a television and film acting career starting as a co-host on..." -- the lede then mentions the TV show and goes on to list a series of other TV shows, numerous movies in which she was an actor, etc. From my limited understanding, there is no sourced content in the article linking her subsequent acting career as having been launched due to her initial (nude) modelling career.
I would be interested in whether those reading this noticeboard consider this wording regarding a female actor to be helpful in bridging the gender gap, how we encourage female editors and how we write about female subjects. Do male actors "parlay" fame in one field into paying jobs in related fields? Do we describe it in that way?
Since it would be tiresome of me not to mention the article name, it's Jenny McCarthy -- you may also wish to consider whether its current state merits B-class. MPS1992 ( talk) 02:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
For anyone interested, please see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 22 March 2019. SarahSV (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A Request for Comment that may be relevant to this task force is open at Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment. Ibadibam ( talk) 05:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
So, recently I have mostly been editing 2018 missile strikes against Syria and Tham Luang cave rescue. In the first article, the relevance and active role of women is made clear early in the article; Theresa May is one of the key players, and Nikki Haley, Permanent US Representative at the UN, soon makes an appearance to reassure the world that the United States is "locked and loaded".
But in the second article, it appears that the first forty-six individually named persons in the article are all male, with no females, transgender or non-binary persons named at all in the entire article. (Please correct me if I have mis-counted -- this does include the rescued as well as the rescuers.) This is despite Sky News having broadcast interviews with the commander of the U.S. contingent who was female, and BBC News having broadcast several segments of footage with female volunteers at the rescue logistics camp. The female volunteers were engaged in activities such as cleaning and cooking. I am certain that there was also footage of mothers, sisters, and female classmates of the trapped persons, but only reactions from male persons are included in the article. The article mentions that over ten thousand persons were involved in the rescue.
First, is this appropriate coverage?
Second, is there a wider gender gap problem in speleology and related emergency rescue procedures? If so, is there anything that we can do to fix this?
The name of the cave itself, incidentally, means "Great Cave of the Sleeping Lady". MPS1992 ( talk) 03:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Gray has been kind enough to compile some data about BLPs, using Wikidata, and has written a fascinating blog post about it: Gender and deletion on Wikipedia. He has uploaded the graphs to Commons.
There have been questions recently about whether existing BLPs about women (BLPs that have not been deleted) were more likely to have been taken to AfD at some point. Andrew thinks that used to be true, but that things have recently levelled off. He wrote: "Female BLPs created 2009-16 appear noticeably more likely than male BLPs of equivalent age to have been through a deletion discussion at some point in their lives (and, presumably, all have been kept). Since 2016, this has changed and the two groups are about even."
Andrew, thank you for putting all this together. And many thanks to RexxS too. SarahSV (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi all!
Are you curious about what tools are effective in reaching Women in Red’s goals? Are you interested in contributing to the building of scalable solutions for closing Wikipedia’s gender gap?
I’m with a group of researchers working on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents and thus to close the gender gap. We want to make sure you, as an important member of the community, can be heard as we build and refine these AIs.
We would like to invite you to a quick interview to share your thoughts about gender gaps on Wikipedia and the current efforts, as well as potential solutions to them. It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.
For more details about our project, please refer to our Wikipedia page here.
If you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon! Reply to this message here or send me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu and I can share more info and plan a time to connect. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"She" vs. "it" for ships. This is a perennial discussion that never seems to reach consensus. Notice of this round of discussion was sort of spammed to various ship- and military-related projects and pages (i.e., places of strong concentration of fans of using "she" for ships, and of male editors in particular), so I'm notifying some other wikiprojects and such that are apt to have wider views and demographics, for balance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor is nominating numerous articles about women footballers / soccer players who have played in top leagues in France and Sweden. The leagues most likely were included on WP:NFOOTY unbalanced list of notable leagues at the time of creation - and have since been removed but that's probably irrelevant here. Basically, many of the articles need improved referencing to meet WP:GNG.
If any editors have time to review and search for references that support WP:GNG and participate in deletion discussion if there is one, it is most appreciated. Here's the list:
Articles for deletion
Featured list candidates
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
A Wikimedia committee has posted a draft version of a Universal Code of Conduct at meta which, while it contains language about respecting the diversity of community members and condemning hate speech that appears in vandalism, does not appear to prohibit or otherwise mention racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of prejudice outside of vandalism and direct insults (in the English version, at least.) It does concern itself with, for example, defining repeated sarcasm as a form of harassment. In the page containing summaries of committee meetings the words "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" also do not appear. (In the English version.)
Perhaps there is a good or practical reason for this; I'm not personally familiar with the high-level Wikimedia policy development process. But the discussion of the UCoC draft closes on October 7, after which the drafting committee will submit its recommendation to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, so I am placing this message in this talk page in the hopes of ensuring that editors who can comment constructively on the absence of language providing guidance on non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of prejudice get a chance to comment. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression may qualify as insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.
JezGrove ( talk) 20:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone I wondered if the insertion of DOB for women may present a form of gender imbalance in that women are more likely than men to be the victims of ageism and accompanying discrimination, and may prefer not to have their ages registered on wikipedia? Is there any option for the subjects of articles to request that their age is occluded, for this reason? My apologies if this has already been debated. Many thanks and cheers, Miles Quest ( talk) 19:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply GorillaWarfare - will take a look - cheers Miles Quest ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Greta Thunberg's article starts with the Mental Health section. There is a discussion about whether it is appropriate, as the typical WP pattern for health disclosure is at the end of the article under the Health Section. Many prominent male figures had mental conditions that began to appear in childhood, but their articles do not start with the section titled Mental Health. I am yet to see another article on a well-known person (not a mental health advocate) that begins with the section titled Mental Health. However, if it exists, it doesn't appear objective. Please provide your inputs if you are interested to discuss this in her "talk" page. /info/en/?search=Greta_Thunberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partizan Kuzya ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
→Thank you!! Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
→Please discuss your thoughts on Thunberg's Talk page if you have any comments. Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 23:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for the supoort in restoring neutrality! Partizan Kuzya ( talk) 17:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I want to apologise if this is not the right forum to write this, but I am hoping to find support and more information. I'm a longtime editor but used to focus more on old (pre-1960s) pop culture/art articles. In the recent years, I've also 'branched out' to more recent pop culture articles, especially related to domestic abuse cases, such as the Amber Heard/ Johnny Depp case, and now, the Marilyn Manson case. Why I started doing this was because I noticed that whenever there's a woman who goes public with abuse allegations, the related WP articles seem to not represent the cases in a neutral way, but instead are often biased towards the person that is alleged to have been the abusive party. The line "innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court" seems to be often thrown around to prevent anything beyond a cursory mention of allegations, despite the fact that criminal convictions in domestic/intimate partner/child abuse cases are relatively rare due to multiple factors, none of which is that fake allegations would be prevalent. The same commitment to 'the truth' that makes editors block almost any mention of abuse allegations does often not go the other way, with almost any material that casts the accuser in a bad light being ok to add apparently.
Examples: the main editor of Manson's WP articles adding a section about Wood stating that Kobe Bryant was a rapist and wording it in a way that was misleading and deliberately made Wood look bad; the same user disputing Wood's statement that she was underage in an image and thus deleting this statement, and refusing to allow details of the allegations in the MM article; after Depp lost his libel case in the UK, editors seem to want to add minutiae on anti-Heard online petitions, or blatant attempts of Depp's team to smear her to the article... I can go on and give more details if you are interested. It also appears that quite a few Wikipedians seem to lose their ability to look at the big picture (e.g. the entire case from start to present day) or to have any basic source criticism when it comes to these articles. It also doesn't seem that many Wikipedians have any basic knowledge of domestic/intimate partner violence (e.g. that mutual abuse is rare but the abuser trying to frame self-defense as such is not; that fake allegations are very, very rare; that it's often difficult to take cases to court; that BDSM and abuse are different things entirely; that abusers can seem to be nice people to outsiders...), although of course this applies to the general population as well. Even in a case where there are multiple accusers making very serious allegations and politicians calling for a FBI investigation (e.g. Manson) or where the accusations have been proven in a civil court (Depp), it seems to be difficult to break through this bias.
Apologies if this is a bit rambling, but I guess I'm here to seek peer support and advice? Is there any type of Manual of Style for these types of cases? It would be great to discuss these issues with others as I often feel like the only editor trying to fight this bias in these articles, but I know I must not be alone. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Trying to make +1 for addressing systemic bias in academia: Talk:New moon § Separating sections: Lunisolar Calendar and Lunar Calendar Today is the second new moon of spring. We don't know this, because they refuse to feature this kind of content on the main page, accusing people like me of POV promoting a lunar religion, and suggesting that I'm WP:NOTHERE. We need to find points of intersection in this struggle. Lets get the new moon on the main page next month. Jaredscribe ( talk) 06:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a requested move at Gender bias on Wikipedia, to move to Sexism on Wikipedia. Please join the discussion. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 03:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC) (please ping me if you reply)
Hello, I would request input on the nomination of Template:Gender unclear for deletion. The reasons for deletion intersect with the goals of this WikiProject, with the template being claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders. The corresponding discussion may thus be of interest to this task force.
Template:Gender unclear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ExoticViolet ( talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ExoticViolet ( talk) 15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a BLPN thread concerning one of the women who has accused Donald Trump of rape, here. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I have just had 2 edits on snooker player Liang Wenbo reverted / watered down. Wenbo was convicted of assault on a woman ( BBC News article). I gave the information its own section and added a summary to the lead section.
The other editor (an admin) has changed it to a sub-section within "personal life" on the grounds that it is a "bit crazy for a full section" and removed it from the lead as "a bit heavy handed for a lede".
I know people are going to say discuss it / start a conversation on the talk page, but I really don't want to get into it, someone else will have to pick up the banner.
This evening (1 April 2022) ITV4's coverage of the Tour Championship 7.15pm, began with presenter Jill Douglas reading out of a statement by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association which read. "We (the WPBSA) were not aware of this incident and are very disappointed to read of such matters.
While we read that Wenbo has already been sentenced for this offence, we will now consider the position from our sport's disciplinary perspective. Again, we are extremely disappointed to read this news today." (also reported on France24).
If anyone wants to take another run at it with the extra refs then please do. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)