Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias

Project Gender studies ⇒ Project page ⇒ Talk page ⇒ Notice Board ⇒ Translation ⇒ Assessment ⇒ Popular pages ⇒ Templates ⇒ Collaboration ⇒ Deletion sorting ⇒ WikiProject Feminism ⇒ Portal:Feminism Category:WikiProject Gender studies

Possessive Terminology

old conversation

moved from To do talk page
I'm not sure how using the terms wife/husband is necessarily possessive. It's noun describing a relationship. If I'm someone's sibling, parent or friend, I am not their property. Why does marriage necessarily indicate ownership? Certainly, the expression "man and wife" does suggest ownership, but "husband and wife" (or "husband and husband" for that matter) does not, does it? - TheMightyQuill 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TheMightyQuill. "Possessive Terminology" is simply a way of specifying relationships in standard English. Other examples include "sister of", "father of", "employer of", "friend of", "enemy of", and far too many more to list here. In none of these cases does it reasonably imply actual ownership. Neitherday 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 related reasons for this: First when an article is a about Hillary Clinton she should be privelaged over her spouse since the article is about her. So for instance "Hillary Clinton, the wife of former president Bill Clinton," - is incorrect as a leader or as the first line of a section. Because it actually erodes Hillary's (the subject's) notability. The article needs to be written (a little po-faced, I'm afraid) rigorously only citing personal deatils where notable. Yes Hillary is Bill's wife but the subject's own notability always comes first. Second Possessive Terminology does imply ownership because, as above, it privelages one relationship over another, which is a POV based writting choice. The guide refers to marriage, which turns Ms Hillary Rodham into Mrs William Clinton, just as TheMightyQuill illustarted with the "man and wife" example. The point is such a "styling" or characterizing of a subject tends towards POV because it does not focus on the subject's own notability and once again it does imply ownership. I don't interpret the guide to imply any form of censorship whatsoever (if it did I'd oppose it) - it is not asking for an exclusion of marriage inormation but rather the proper placement of that info within the article showing correct regard for the subject's notability.

P.S. Apologizes for the references to Hillary she was the best example I could think of on the spur of the moment--Cailil 14:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying seems more reasonable. The Hillary Clinton article more appropriately would state "Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton...", as Hillary is the primary focus not Bill. However the statement on the to do list read: "Possessive Terminology: Referring to someone as the wife of (or husband of) someone implies possession of them by their husband or wife. Terminology such as is married to restores the person's humanity, and keeps the focus on the person being described.", which is something quite different than you are talking about. Neitherday 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as far off the guide as you might think Neitherday, when I said ""styling" or characterizing of a subject tends towards POV because it does not focus on the subject's own notability" I am including "referring to someone as the wife of (or husband of)". In the line: "A is married to B" such a POV or privelaging does not take place - that in my interpretation is the essence of the guideline. Just a BTW the gudielines have been moved to a new department for "countering systemic gender bias"--Cailil 13:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV or privelaging taking place in "referring to someone as the wife of (or husband of)" any more than in "friend of" or "enemy of". Neitherday 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

New conversation

Is "Possessive Terminology" really a problem? It is simply a way of specifying relationships in standard English. Other examples are "sister of", "father of", "employer of", "friend of", "enemy of", and far too many more to list here. In none of these cases does it reasonably imply actual ownership. Neitherday 17:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As above "wife" is a particular case. It is not the same as "friend", "enemy" or other adjectives like "founder" or "maker". Wife is a culturally loaded term, that in itself is not a argument for not using it but rather a caveat pointing out that it needs to be used carefully. As I pointed out above marriage does imply possession (more particularly in other cultures). That said having looked at the page carefully I do think the guides need to rewritten, however I think the essence of the guide on possessive terminology (as stated above) is still neccessary on wikipedia. Would you like to suggest an alternative wording Neitherday?--Cailil ^talk 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the same standard is applied consistently, there need be no special cases. While it definitely needs tweaking, I would suggest something along the lines of this:

Biased definitions of relationships

Relationships should be defined in terms of the subject of the article.

Examples for an article about person X:

WRONG: Y is married to X

CORRECT: X is married to Y

WRONG: X is Y's spouse

CORRECT: X's spouse Y

Neitherday 22:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think even my own suggestion here misses the larger picture by nitpicking a detail of language. A simple general rule of thumb should be: if an article is about a person, then the article should consistantly treat that person as the primary subject. Neitherday 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right Neitherday - your rule of thumb is simple and to the point - I agree with it--Cailil ^talk 20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ms Miss and Mrs

I think the policy to do with these terms on the project page is over-stated. Ms should be the default term to use if there is no established pattern for how the person is known. If the person is known to have a preference or there is an established method for refering to someoen in reliable sources, then that pattern should be followed. Margaret Thatcher was most certainly Mrs Thatcher until she became Lady/Baroness Thatcher. Carol Thatcher is Ms. Thatcher. Elizabeth Gaskell can be Elizabeth or Gaskell, or Mrs. Gaskell or Elizabeth Cleghorn Stevenson but surely not Ms. Gaskell in a way that complies with Wikipedia policy.--Peter cohen 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Add "Avoid Gender Biased Editing" to Page?

I've notice over the years, that systemic Wikipedia gender bias propagates via edits (deletions and additions). What contributors decide to remove is just as harmful as what they add. Sometimes deletions are nearly vandalism. It can quickly wipe out visibility efforts and go unnoticed for months or years. Seems like this page should offer suggestions on how to counter this (e.g.: "Double-check your editing contributions for omissions that might obscure or patterns that might put negative focus on a gender group."). Anyone like this idea? -- Deebki 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gender Biased Editing and the deletion process

I've noticed while lurking that articles about women's issues are far more likely to be brought up for deletion and deleted than articles about issues more commonly associated with men. Articles on million-selling books, pioneer musicians, forms of art, and hobbies that are more popular with women are slammed, while every walk-on in a male-oriented science fiction TV show gets its own 1,000 word article. This seems to stem from two places:

• Most editors are men, and are likely to consider what they don't recognize as non-notable despite the existence of reliable sources;
• Most editors, men and women, unconsciously think anything directed mainly at women must be innately less notable, of lower quality, less valuable, and more easily dismissed as garbage than anything directed at men, because men are the default.

Is anything going to be written or done to address this? --NellieBly (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nellie while the issue you are describing might happen occassionally there is no proof that

Most editors, men and women, unconsciously think anything directed mainly at women must be innately less notable, of lower quality, less valuable, and more easily dismissed as garbage than anything directed at men, because men are the default.

. Deletion is carried out by systematic process. The first stage of which is the sometimes problematic XfD format (have a look at WP:AFD). However oversight exists, it's called the deletion review - where questionable deletions can be investigated.
There is also a noticeboard which editors can watch called Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender. At this board AFDs relating to the topics of gender and sexuality will be listed as they come-up--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)