Talk:Gender reveal party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contemporary Debates

I added a tag to this section because it seems to me that it is dominated by only one side of the "debate". Also most of the content comes from a single editor, and this section is much too large in proportion to the primary topic of the article. Finally the extensive quotations make it look like someone's Gender Studies 101 essay rather than an encyclopedic article, in my opinion. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There was much wrong with this. I took a stab at trying to condense it down, excluding some things I thought were truly extraneous, and above all to try to separate out two different issues: a) whether the gender reveal party predicts an infant's gender rather than sex (baby might be trans), and b) whether it reinforces gender stereotypes (girls might want to play with trucks and erector sets). Even so, we *clearly* need way more on the initial section, explaining what actually happens. We don't have too much analysis, just too little foundation to put it on. Wnt (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Antiscientific claptrap

This reads like a neo-marxist essay from a gender studies program. Nurture defines if you're male or female? Have these people never heard of sex chromosomes? --Dinosaurdracula (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the section is still fairly one-sided, but if you look at a historical version from a week or so ago you can see there has been a lot of this, um, stuff... removed. It could still use some cleanup and balance though, I think. As the intro says, the party is to reveal the child's genitalia, not personality, which is not yet known. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

First, on sex: Sex chromosomes are a bit of an introductory biology trap. To a good approximation they are accurate, yes. Even some conditions like Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome can be pretty reliably be called female and male, despite unusual numbers of sex chromosomes. Nonetheless, "maleness" is largely a function of a single gene, SRY, which can be weakened or absent in activity, or might even be translocated to another chromosome (honestly I forget if that ever happens in practice). And other genes will affect SRY activity to some degree. So you can have people whose "sex" is actually very much up in the air, even at a philosophical level; it is NOT truly either-or. Also note the downstream effects are subject to testosterone. The most eye-opening case is 5α-Reductase deficiency, as in the case of the "guevedoces" of Las Salinas who grow up as girls but become boys.

Second, "gender" is not sex. There are a number of societies with a recognized "third sex", which I think is actually a third gender, by which is meant, there are different expectations. And remember how arbitrary those expectations are! I mean, women are often well nigh coerced into shaving off their underarm and leg hair even though it is pretty, delicate, feminine in every way ... in order to look "feminine", as if there were something more female than female. And many men shave off their beards to look like women without feeling like they're acting trans at all. So I mean, I look at Chelsea Manning in that wig and lipstick figure and she doesn't even look slightly more female to me than in her male-style military uniform, but to people more attuned to the culture I live in this practically counts as changing from male to female. That's what gender is about, a set of social roles and expectations. Does that make any sense to you? Wnt (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You act like the Gender =/= Sex is accepted by everyone, when in reality its something that someone made up a few years ago. Its bad linguistics, you cant enforce your view of what words mean on other people. Language is what is accepted, and right now it would be inaccurate to say that gender and sex being different is widely accepted in the english language. Delete the first sentence of the "Testing Methods and Issues" where it says that gender is a misnomer. And fix the first sentence of the article by deleting the "more precisely" part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.21.176.139 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(comment removed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.71.210 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL. God is a libtard, and made a biology with girls who grow penises at age 12 and turn into boys, and wikt:gender and wikt:sex are not synonyms in our or any other dictionary. If you think things are complicated now, just wait until men can become biological mothers ... which is sooner than you think. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits of User:Laragenet (talk) and warned him about abusing edit summaries, along with User:106.51.71.210 (talk) for his personal attacks. 9³ 05:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that the parents who throw gender reveal parties are unaware that their unborn child's sex may be different from what the doctors tell them? Michellekozai (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is the criticism section so long?

Can someone help me understand if I'm being too harsh on it, or if the criticism section is as nitpicky as it sounds to me? I think that some of the listed criticisms, such as these parties being rituals, or being vain and unnecessary, are minor issues of the like that should not be in an encyclopedia. I'm particularly confused by the "ritual" part, in the first sentences of the third paragraph. Is that inherently bad? Are not most of the celebrations and traditions of our society generally considered rituals? The paragraph never explains.

Also, is it just me, or do the first and penultimate sentence both say the same thing?

Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree, no criticism section should be half of the article. I'll add a tag. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

...What the...

So, reading this article.... the takeaways I get are ... These are parties where the gender of the baby is revealed. This party may bias what gender the unborn fetus identifies as. This party may cause the fetus to be aborted, if it is an undesired gender. Those do not make sense to me. The former, the unborn fetus lacks the cognitive ability to do pretty much anything, including things like selecting favorites of any kind. The latter, if you determined the fetus to be a gender you did not want, why would you have a party? I do not see how either issue is relevant to a ‘gender reveal party’, as neither criticism makes sense in the given context. 67.190.126.82 (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the bias thing is more that it will influence the family, who will then influence the child later in life. The abortion thing doesn't really apply though; I think you're right about that. It's sourced from an article criticizing gender reveal parties, but the source makes no attempt to connect sex-selective abortions to gender reveal parties, either. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Distinguish from outing

This edit with summary (unneeded hatnote disambiguator) removed a hatnote distinguishing this sort of party from outing, which is an involuntary disclosure of someone's transgender status. It may have appeared "unneeded" since the July move from Gender reveal, but the old title still redirects here. Would it be better to restore the hatnote as a "Gender reveal" redirects here or to turn Gender reveal into a disambiguation page? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Is the criticism section even criticizing the subject of the article?

As the article mentions to an extent in the history section, gender reveal parties are fairly rare, and mostly a social media phenomenon that seems to be treated as more common than it actually is by the social circles that actually hold them. Yet the criticism section is primarily describing criticism of revealing an unborn baby's gender to friends a family, a very common practice that gender reveal parties are just an uncommon form of - I'm not seeing any criticism of gender reveal parties in specific in that section. 85.164.126.184 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the last sentence, but I think on the whole it is criticizing gender reveal parties specifically. The first paragraph is criticizing the phrase "gender reveal", the third is a quote by the creator of the parties about the parties, and the first sentence of the fourth criticizes common titles for reveal parties. The second paragraph quotes a source that says gender reveal parties specifically can reinforce heteronormativity, though looking at it now I do think it might be redundant with the first. Justin Kunimune (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The use of the word "violent" seems out of place considering this is basically a baby shower: "criticisms arose surrounding the danger of one-upmanship and carelessness of these more violent gender reveal parties".JettaMann (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to characterize parties that use fire, explosives, beating a piñata, even popping a balloon or using a knife on a cake as violent. Accidentally starting major wildfires emphasizes the violent nature of these reveals. Thus they differ from baby showers, which do not have this aspect. WordwizardW (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Gender reveal partys are rare because they are practiced by stupid rich people with a lot of time and money and no ideas how to make sense to their useless lives. However, since these people are stupid, and they play with fire, literally, so they get burned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.222.210 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I see them increasingly common among members of various socioeconomic classes. However, it's not proper on Wikipedia to call a whole class of people "stupid" or say they have "useless lives". Please, try to be WP:CIVIL. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving Lead and Other Stuff

@Helpfulwikieditoryay: I have taken care to correct the page after your edits. Please note that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and so our Criticism section talks about the majority of criticisms in more depth and the lead mentions the controversial nature given criticisms. I also want to tell you that you added a sentence and claim about oneupmanship, which might be one way to look at it, but the sources doesn't explicitly say or heavily imply that, so it's WP:SYNTH at best and WP:OR at worst. We should do our best to only include claims that the sources say. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! The only problem I see left is the switch between genital sex and sex under the paragraph "The Reveal." To keep it neutral, it should simply say sex, as it does in the rest of the article. Why does it suddenly say genital sex before it mentions the criticisms? I looked up "genital sex" and the search brings me to sexual intercourse. I don't think there's any such thing as a term "genital sex." The sex would be of the fetus. I appreciate your edits. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Helpfulwikieditoryay, genital sex is more appropriate because sex is multiple characteristics and they're only focusing on one. They aren't typically testing fetuses for hormonal or genetic composition. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Genital sex means sexual intercourse. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Genital+sex It makes the sentence confusing. It's better just to keep it as sex, then explain in the criticism section that some people believe that means it's only about genitals (but it already explains that so it's good). Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Helpfulwikieditoryay

Lead Wording

User @Wimpus: decided to make a bold edit, I reverted it, he reverted my reversion, so now it's the time of the cycle that we discuss these changes. Ignoring the loaded terms used for his original edit summary involving "gender activists" (which make it harder to AGF), it's clear that he believes that the lead wording should not include anything regarding gender, gender or sex assignment, but only discuss things in terms of sex.

As the person who rewrote most of the article from its previous incarnation, I feel it's a bit silly to throw out discussion of gender and gender assignment when that is only of the chief purposes of the event, even going so far as to include "gender" in the event name. Not to mention, this is specifically discussed in this context among many sources cited in the article. I think the original wording is sufficient. Looking for comments and input, especially by third parties. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your original wording in the lead was: "The primary goal of this event is the eponymous "reveal" of the fetal sex to the expecting parents, family, and friends." (altered from: A gender reveal party is a celebration during which parents, friends and family find out the sex of a baby. "). That is actually quite compatible with the definition of gender reveal In this source "A public announcement by expectant parents of the sex of their unborn child." The single-edit user however changed: "The primary goal of this event is the eponymous "reveal" of the baby's sex to the expecting parents, family, and friends." to "The primary goal of this event is the eponymous "reveal" of the baby's expected gender based on the sex expected to be assigned at birth to the expecting parents, family, and friends.", without explaining in the edit summary this edit. The push to include "gender" in this sentence complicates matters (e.g. readibility and it is doubtful whether parents actually refer to the gender and not to the fetal sex as shown by prenatal sex discernment). Wimpus (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wimpus, if I found the edit to be objectionable and not tenable, I would've reverted their edit. Technically the other user's edits are more accurate. However, I think we could work to improve the wording to be more agreeable while adhering to your standards. Perhaps we could mention the or footnote the technicalities? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would the edit of the single-edit user be more acurate? Could you please elaborate? Wimpus (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wimpus, that is because it would be improper to ignore the fact the there is a sex and gender distinction and the event term uses "gender" not "sex", but it associates that with, and to avoid gender essentialism based on sex assignment, we should not gloss over that fact. By describing the event as a sex reveal party, as our current wording does, it removes the fact that the event is used for gender assignment based on genitals. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It is a sex-reveal party according to the Oxford source I have mentioned. Which NPOV-scientific sources tell us otherwise? Wimpus (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read also Haig (2004, p. 87 and p. 95): "This distinction is now only fitfully respected, and gender is often used as a simple synonym of sex." and "As the sex-to-gender ratio has declined, gender has come to be adopted as a simple synonym, perhaps a euphemism, for sex by many writers who are unfamiliar with the term’s recent history." So "gender" would probably mean "sex" in the case of "gender-reveal party". Wimpus (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wimpus, I acknowledge this, but I also must point out that it is nearly 18 years old (as we are nearly in 2021 and the pdf you linked said most of it was published in 2003) and doesn't address the issues at hand. I think we should, for the purposes of this article, look at the sources cited for it. Since the early 00s, the distinction between sex and gender has grown and become more acceptable in society.

Pasche Guignard (2015), the first cited source on the page about this specifically says "It is important, however, to acknowledge that the very name ‘‘gender-reveal party’’ is in itself highly problematic. In a gender-reveal party, what is really disclosed is the sex ascribed to the shape of a fetus’ genitalia, while discursive strategies and the manipulation of specific objects construct and perform gender. The gender-reveal party constitutes an example of how the categories of sex and gender can be defined and understood in different ways by scholars on the one hand, and, on the other hand, by the performers, who have no methodological issues at stake in substituting ‘‘sex’’ with ‘‘gender.’’ Performers very seldom use the label ‘‘sex reveal party.’’ The rhetoric and dynamics at work in the gender-reveal party further destabilize the divide in traditional definitions of ‘‘sex’’ and ‘‘gender,’’ already contested in feminist scholarship (see, for instance, Fausto-Sterling, 2000)." Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source from someone from a real scientific discipline, not someone who makes fun of science, by uttering postmodernist obscurantism. Wimpus (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wimpus, the study of social sciences is already quite "soft". There is not really any "hard"-ness to it, however it would be very improper to label the proper academic study of sociology, including religion and linguistics, as non-scientific. Pasche Guignard is a doctoral-level expert on religious and social ritual and behavior. Haig is a doctoral-level expert on biology. This page discusses something more in line with Pasche Guignard's expertise.

Discounting a whole academic field of study (such as sociology) because this particular author comes off to you as "postmodernist" isn't an argument, nor is it productive for building the wiki. There is nothing they say there which is in any way obscurantism. It's very understandable and nuanced. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of my recent edit, April 23rd

Crossroads - I'm confused by your reversion of my edit that expanded the incidents and injuries section. Based on your reversion, you believed these to only have been reported locally. This appears to have been entirely unchecked on your behalf. I don't want to start an edit war, so I thought it best to tag you here and explain my reasoning.

I added the following incidents

• In July 2017, a gender reveal party in Cincinnati was interrupted when gunmen fired upon the party, killing one, injuring eight and a dog. 3 men were arrested, and it was revealed the mother-to-be had faked her pregnancy.

Reported in Washington Post, The State, CNN, Global News Canada, Hindustan Times, New York Post, The Sun UK.

• In October 2018, a gender reveal party in Ohio at an Applebee's restaurant ended after participants of the party assaulted a waitress after being asked to clean up party poppers used during the reveal.

Reported in Fox News, New York Post, and listed by Insider as one of the most ridiculous gender reveals of 2018.

• [addition to existing item] A day later, a separate gender reveal party in Iowa shook homes up to two miles away

Reported by Seattle Times, Pink News, CTV News Canada

• In March 2020, a tannerite explosive at a gender reveal party sparked a fire in Brevard County, Florida during a period of fire ban, burning 10 acres.

Reported in CNN, The Cut, Fox Carolina, CTV News Canada, NBC Miami,

• On February 7, 2021, a 26 year old man was killed in Gaines Township, Michigan when an antique cannon at a gender reveal party malfunctioned, hitting him with a piece of metal shrapnel.

Reported in the New York Post, ABC News, 9News Australia, USA Today, Washington Post, as well as Huffington Post, CNN, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, Global News Canada, Huffington Post Canada, New Zealand Herald, News.com.au, The Mirror UK, Fox Carolina... I shan't go on any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTdale (talk • contribs)

The edit I reverted referenced only local news channels. In any case, we don't need excessive examples. Please see the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gender reveal party accidents. I'm not saying you can't add any, but we need to not overdo it. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Incidents and deaths section

That section seems weird to me and it almost feels like someone is trying to push an agenda with that section.

I don’t see a incidents section for Baby shower, Homecoming, Birthday, or other events.

Sure Senior prank mentioned that there are some incidents which it’s obvious why that’s the case for senior pranks.(Every one who’s at least been to High School knows that)

But senior prank doesn’t list some random examples like this.

It’s almost like some group is trying to paint gender reveal parties as bigoted and uses cherry picked incidents to make the practice of gender reveal parties look bad. CycoMa (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

There's enough general press coverage of these accidents that it would seem weirder not to mention them. Any newsprint overview of gender reveals from the past few years mentions this aspect, and Jenna Karvunidis has explicitly criticised it in interviews in the past couple of years ("For the love of God, stop burning things down to tell everyone about your kid's penis").

A section about incidents and death might read better as prose, but it should be mentioned rather than removed. I don't think the article, as written, implies that these tragic events are common, just that they sometimes happen and it's newsworthy when they do. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lord Belbury, it previously was more prose, it was recently converted to a list-style format by Nachtbold ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: The dots I added didn't change that much. I just made an obvious list look like a an actual list. Removing the dots makes it a nude list, not a prose text. If you want this section to be continuous, it needs to be rewritten in its entirety. At the moment it is barely more than a clumsy chaining of events, but that's not the fault of my edit. --Nachtbold (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• We can definitely trim some that got only minor/local coverage. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I also find it incredibly weird and out of place that for some reason there is an incident and deaths section on this type of party, but parties that cause way more fires (birthday parties, New Years, etc) and way more deaths (any party that normally has drugs/alcohol) somehow do not have an incidents and deaths section.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2000042/13-killed-french-bar-fire-caused-candles-birthday-cake

Should this be added to the birthday party page?

It clearly is pushing an agenda. I understand some people do not like gender reveal parties, and they are free to have their opinion. But wikipedia needs to stay neutral. The editing done on this page is so biased it's laughable. We really do need to do something about it. This is bad for wikipedia's reputation. This page looks like a personal blog written by someone whose archnemesis loves gender reveal parties and they wrote this blog out of spite. It's seriously that bad. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Such events should be covered in the article in proportion to their coverage in reliable, secondary sources. If you check some of the "find sources" links below, one could argue on that based on that around half of the article should be about explosions and fires.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I wouldn't argue for that much coverage, but anyone who says it's "pushing an agenda" to include information about disasters is out of touch with what the reliable sources are actually saying about gender reveal parties in reality. To exclude coverage of these events in the face of such broad coverage of them would be highly WP:UNDUE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason it is pushing an agenda is because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this page is for explaining gender reveal parties. That is why you don't see a list of birthday party deaths. Let's go ask the person who added that section how much they like gender reveal parties. Gauranteed they have negative personal feelings about them that caused them add that section. The news coverage itself was done by people who are personally biased against the parties. Just because other people are biased doesn't mean wikipedia has to be. This article needs to be in line with other articles about parties. This article is turning into a joke. It was bad before but the new edits are just goofy. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If birthday parties were invented ten years ago and the majority of popular press coverage mentioned the deaths and wildfires they caused, Wikipedia would put that in its explanation of what birthday parties were. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH of other Wikipedia editors and don't claim to know how they feel about a subject. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Not it wouldn't, because that's not what a birthday party is. A dozen or so incidents happening at birthday parties when birthday parties happen every day (let's pretend they were only invented over a decade ago, and let's pretend birthday parties have had only as few incidents as gender reveals rather than many more proportionately) does not explain birthday parties. There has been much more news coverage having to do with birthdays, weddings, 4th of July parties, Halloween parties, etc and we still do not mention that in those articles. So why should less press coverage be mentioned here? It's quite irrelevant to people who host gender reveal parties. That's why it's so out of place in this article. I have assumed good faith. That's why I have considered this article and its quality for several months before saying this, and it is abundantly evident that this article is not written in good faith. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Try a news search for yourself - the majority of press coverage of gender reveal parties is directly about fires and deaths; articles about the trend in general all mention those fires and deaths; even some of the wholesome good news stories about a local couple's gender reveal say that at least it didn't end in fire or death. It would be misleading for Wikipedia not to mention the fires and the death. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised journalists are biased against gender reveal parties. I'm saying wikipedia doesn't have to be biased. The article should be in line with other articles about parties. It is extremely misleading for wikipedia to stoop as low as other biased journalists. It is wikipedia's job to sort through the bias, not embrace it. This is a real online encyclopedia. The article needs to be comparable to other similar subjects. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The majority of coverage and articles about gender reveal parties is about the disasters, injuries, and deaths that seem to frequently accompany them. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and news coverage to write articles, if the majority of coverage about a subject is about a particular aspect of it, that aspect will have at minimum a subsection. Its not bias to talk about this in the article, since its such a significant part of both the coverage of these parties and their conception in the public consciousness. SomerIsland (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"...that seem to frequently accompany them..." This is EXACTLY why wikipedia needs to remain unbiased. Even if you're on a mission to search for incidents, you'll only be able to find a dozen or so out of ALL the gender reveal parties in the past decade. This is disruptively biased, and does not paint a truthful picture of gender reveal parties, which are safe 99.999% of the time. Wikipedia's job is to explain what gender reveal parties are without bias. If they were frequently dangerous then it should be mentioned. But seeing that they are way safer than birthday parties, it is misleading. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Helpfulwikieditoryay:, I think you are missing something essential about how Wikipedia works, namely the principle of WP:DUEWEIGHT. At least three editors above have alluded to this principle above (including me), so I won't belabor it; you can read it yourself at the WP:Neutral point of view page. I'll just point out that this is a Wikipedia policy, and outside of legal requirements (like respecting copyright and avoiding libel) its recommendations have very strong force in guiding how editors are to act in articles. Indeed, WP:NPOV is number two of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. We summarize in our articles, what reliable sources publish; period. That is what Wikipedia editors do. If sources report disasters, then we try to report them, in proportion to their appearance in the sources; if there is only a "tiny minority" of sources that report on them, then we ignore it completely.

It doesn't matter whether GRPs are safe 99.999% of the time (although if you can find a reliable source that says that, you're more than welcome to add it to the article), what matters is what the preponderance of stories say about it. It could be that this is somewhat a function of what is considered newsworthy; see man bites dog.

You make a number of accusations above, criticizing the neutrality of the editors who added the content:

• Let's go ask the person who added that section how much they like gender reveal parties. Gauranteed they have negative personal feelings about them that caused them add that section.

• it is abundantly evident that this article is not written in good faith.

as well as criticizing the journalists who wrote the original reports:

• The news coverage itself was done by people who are personally biased against the parties.

• I'm not at all surprised journalists are biased against gender reveal parties.

• It is extremely misleading for wikipedia to stoop as low as other biased journalists.

I don't know if this is just frustrated hyperbole on your part, or whether you really believe what you are saying; I hope the former. But if you're serious, then issues concerning neutrality or good faith of editors should be taken up on the users' talk pages, and not here, as that is not the purpose of an article Talk page. Issues about the reliability of journalists or the outlets that publish them can be discussed here but have minimal exposure and only local effect here, if any; a better venue is the Reliable sources noticeboard.

Your mistake is in misunderstanding Wikipedia's very purpose, the role of volunteer editors, and how we achieve neutral point of view (Pillar #2). You said,

This... does not paint a truthful picture of gender reveal parties, which are safe 99.999% of the time. Wikipedia's job is to explain what gender reveal parties are without bias. If they were frequently dangerous then it should be mentioned.

but that is wrong. Wikipedia's job is *not* to mention disasters "If they were frequently dangerous", but rather, to mention disasters if the reliable sources frequently mention disasters. If 0.001% of GRPs have fires, and 10% of the reliable sources talk about them, then (roughly) ten percent of our article should be about fires. *That* is your misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works, and imho, probably explains your beliefs about biased or bad-faith editors here. (Which, by the way, you should retract, unless you have hard evidence, because of WP:AGF.) It doesn't really explain your claims of biased journalism, but maybe that's due to failure to get the man-bites-dog aspect of it.

I'm not sure what it really means to you, to "paint a truthful picture of gender reveal parties", but that's not what Wikipedia is about. We are not arbiters of Truth (see WP:NOTTRUTH)— we are about summarizing reliable accounts, and if reliable reporting covers 0.001% of the incidents 10% of the time, then so do we. That's my best shot, I don't know how to explain it any better; maybe someone else can. I hope this helps. (One request: can you please indent your replies? I presume you know about indentation and how it is used in discussion threading; see WP:THREAD for a refresher.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any "agenda pushing" going on in the #Incidents and injuries section, but because of your allegations I'm pinging editors who have both edited that section (per Who Wrote That?) and are also among the top-ten page editors (per pagestats): @Gwennie-nyan, WhatamIdoing, Widjididji, Genericusername57, and Patar knight:. This is a courtesy ping only; don't feel you need to respond here if you don't wish to. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The deaths that get reported at gender-reveal parties are qualitatively different. Reported deaths at birthday parties tend to be homicides, with some drownings. (Things like drunk-driving deaths and COVID-19 deaths happen after the person leaves the party.) Reported deaths at gender-reveal parties tend to be accidental deaths involving the focal point of the event. It's not surprising that source treat these differently. At a birthday party, you are mostly showing up to attend a safe, happy event, and if domestic violence turns up as an uninvited guest, that's newsworthy but not really about the event. At (the relevant subset of) gender reveal parties, you are showing up for the purpose of witnessing a dangerous stunt. Deaths and injuries caused by deliberately undertaking dangerous stunts are both newsworthy and about the type of event itself. In this respect, Gender reveal party is a subject more akin to an event such as an Air show than to an ordinary family party, and should have a section about the safety problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot, WhatamIdoing, and others above. The incidents associated with gender reveal parties are fundamentally different than those that occur at other parties, and their treatment in reliable sources mirrors this. When incidents do occur they seemingly occur because they are tied to the defining feature of the gender reveal party and aren't incidental. Reliable sources also tend to link the stories together and mention previous incidents at these parties. In fact, if we were to strictly follow the proportion of in-depth coverage from reliable sources about gender reveal parties, we would be devoting much more of the article to these incidents that we currently are. I think the current article is (correctly) very conservative in paring down the content included to what is most encyclopedically relevant. I'm also perplexed by the claims of promoting bigotry since the list of incidents mostly doesn't really reveal any identifying information except two cases where the gender of those killed was revealed. The locations of the incidents are also diverse and varied. It would one thing if someone unnecessarily added details about the race, religion, etc. of the people involved but that simply isn't the case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to AGF, I think that Helpful is well-meaning but misguided. I would also suggest they self-critique after reading WP:IDL to avoid looking like that. Regardless I think it's a bit much to jump right to accusing the whole series of editors engaging in pushing an agenda. It's much better to discuss things in terms of specific sources or writing. What would be better, in my opinion, is to say you have concerns about NPOV about a specific practice or coverage in the article, which a nuanced discussion can be had about. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The incidents page doesn't just talk about stunts. It has a guy breaking his ankle on accident and a random shooting. I was referring to birthday party deaths caused by candles inherent to birthday parties, not drowning or homocides of course. I agree that's be different. That page is linked on this page, so that should be in a different talk section. I think this page has the same problem on the acount of the plane crashing. The plane crash was an accident and has nothing more to do with gender reveals than shootings have to do with birthdays. What are your thoughts on this? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The List of people injured or killed at gender reveal parties is a different article, and you'd have to ask at Talk:List of people injured or killed at gender reveal parties to see why those were considered appropriate. I imagine that they included the broken ankle because of the phrase "kicking a football filled with exploding pink paint" in the source, i.e., the injury happend while engaged in a dangerous stunt that was the point of the event. A "random shooting" might not be appropriate to include. A stand-alone list will ideally have defined Wikipedia:List selection criteria to help editors decide what to include.

I looked for deaths at birthday parties. In the (fairly recent) news, I found two drowning incidents and many shootings. I found zero deaths by fire, caused by birthday candles or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Describing The Controversy

90.253.127.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has raised an issue in the way the LEAD is written regarding controversy. Their bold edit which I have reverted so we can discuss it seems to advocate we defocus the gender theory based controversy and focus on the incidents and injuries stemming from instances of reveals gone awry. I personally prefer the original language rather than their proposed language. I was hoping to meet in the middle. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Very kind of you to go more than halfway in opening this discussion, since IP 90.253.127.43 (talk · contribs) is still new. I propose we ignore the middle of two editors' opinions, and figure out where the majority of reliable sources are, and just echo that viewpoint in summary form. If that happens to agree with IP they'll be happy, and if it doesn't, they won't. (Spoiler: it doesn't, imho.) In any case the WP:ONUS is on them to demonstrate the contrary, and achieve a new consensus that would overturn the current one. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

My problem is that the "binary gender essentialism" critique/view is held by an incredibly small number of people and should be a minor footnote of what's become a massive phenomen. Giving it a prominent position in the lead is strange to me. 90.253.127.43 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 90: I think you meant to say, "an incredibly large number of people". But either way, your opinion, and my opinion, counts for nothing at all at Wikipedia. If it did, everything would be chaos, and the encyclopedia project would fall apart. That's why we have the WP:Verifiability policy: to make sure that neither of our views gets into the article. Instead of just giving our opinion, what we have to do here, is check what the majority of reliable sources say on the subject, and then add that to the article in summary form. That's how Wikipedia works on this article, and on the other 6,331,898 articles. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources about this phenomenon don't even mention this fringe "binary gender essentialism" criticism. Why it's in the lead as apparently the primary critique I don't know. 90.253.127.43 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just checking first, I assume you've read all the sources cited here? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Mathglot ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michellekozai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slopez58.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019, between 15 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bryanna nicole8. Peer reviewers: Gashar823.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote to Outing

Gender reveal still redirects to this article. The phrase also describes outing, or revealing someone else's transgender status. Lord Belbury (talk · contribs) removed a hatnote disambiguating this meaning on grounds "(this disambiguation does seem unlikely to ever be needed)". I disagree that it is "unlikely to ever be needed". What would lead someone to such a conclusion? Or would converting Gender reveal from a redirect to a disambiguation page be better for readers? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the history I was just agreeing with the IP who'd removed it the day before: their edits had been reverted but I agreed with that one. It sounded like a tenuous and unusual connection to me, I hadn't ever heard anyone use the term "gender reveal" to describe outing. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)