Wikipedia talk:Writing about women/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is a very important piece

Slim Virgin, I've copy-edited the page; there was little to change, except I experimented with reversing the ideas in the lead paragraph. Please revert anything you don't want!

You might consider a packaged in-a-nutshell set of points, top or bottom. Unsure.

"Because modern search and recommendation algorithms exploit both structural and lexical information on Wikipedia"—I'm not sure what structural information is in this context. Could it be made a little easier for readers?

"man has difficulty in childbirth" seems a bit opaque/obvious, gender-wrenching. What about: "This would seem obvious to any man on the street." -> ... person ...

The opening of the "Medical issues" section might include a brief generic explanation or examples of how these issues can be discriminatory.

I have to say: this is a valuable summation of the main issues, backed up well by references to the literature. It captures all of the key points. Let's hope it will be disseminated more widely than in essay form, and may I suggest that at some stage consideration be given to translating it into other languages? Perhaps more than just a straight textual translation, but a consideration of specific cultural contexts, and where possible/appropriate references to non-English-language sources? Maaaaaybe that's a small-scale project for IEG.

Any complaint by (male) editors is surely through not understanding the special sensitivities required in this oh-so-slow period of transition between male-dominated and gender-equal points in history. The appropriateness of this sensitivity is hard to explain in the text itself, and probably best not treated there; but the matter can be dealt with on any talkpage easily enough if one has to. Tony (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for this. Your copy edit and these suggestions are extremely helpful. I'll start thinking about how to rephrase some of these points. Re: translation, excellent idea. Challenging because of some of the language issues, but it would be interesting to see how it was applied. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing that this is now in project space. Thanks. Tony (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"unhappily married"

"Another consideration is where a woman was unhappily married but retained her husband's name; Wikipedia biographers might prefer in that situation to use her first name." Seems to contradict our core policy of NPOV. If someone uses the name X, and reliable sources call them X, then we shouldn't overrule their judgment and call them something else, especially if that is based on our subjective judgment of whether they are or are not happy in their marriage. We should call them something else when reliable sources call them something else. --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering whether or not she is/was happily married doesn't really make sense to me in this context. Being unhappily married doesn't imply you are also unhappy with a specific name. I know many women who divorced, yet chose to keep their married name, often for simplicity, or to have the same last name as their kids, or because they are recognized by that name, or because they simply like that name. We should consider what name the subject prefers, but I'm confused why marital satisfaction would be a consideration. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I added that as a result of Victoria's point here, which I thought was interesting. I may have phrased it poorly, and should have made clear that it doesn't apply to living people, because otherwise we follow what the woman calls herself. I don't mind removing it, unless someone can think of a way to express it better. The point is that writers will sometimes choose to use first names, for various reasons, and we can't tell them it's not allowed, so I was trying to describe some of the good reasons a writer might want to do it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; removed. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Defining women by their relationships" section heading

I'm quite impressed with this essay; it's come together well and makes some very good points.

The only small issue I have is with the subheading "Defining women by their relationships" which, if one is a lazy reader like I can be, could be interpreted as condoning rather than denouncing that perspective. I've been trying to come up with something different but I'm having a hard time doing that. My first instinct is to change this section to "Relationships and notability" and to also change the encompassing section heading to something like "Writing about relationships" or "Including relationship information" but I don't know if that would be better.

Anyways, this is just a minor sticking point for me in what is otherwise a thoughtful and informative essay. Thanks for writing it. Ca2james (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ca2james: many thanks for the feedback. I'll give that heading some more thought. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

a discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

There is a discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, section: Talk:Jess Greenberg that may be of interest and that other editors are welcome to join. Tuesdaymight (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote box

Regarding the introduction of this quote box: I'm not sure what is the intent of including this. It describes a convention that may occur in some professions at some institutions (though with the increased prevalence of women doctors today, it seems to be more of a rank distinction). However since there's no reason for Wikipedia articles to follow conventions from general conversations, I don't believe this description is necessary. For example, in the same conversation thread, the nurse is likely to respond using the doctor's title, but this is not a reason for Wikipedia articles to use "Dr." when referring to doctors. isaacl (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the use of a quote box with an attribution at the bottom is appropriate only when the text is taken from the source; in this case, the text apparently is referring to information from the source, and not a literal quote. isaacl (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the reason for this quotebox either. Also, the shrinking of the images isn't good. Sarah ^(talk) 18:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The essay says that the use of first names is used to infantilize women. However, there is no source for this assertion. Of course essays don't need sources, but this essay does cite several sources for its claim that using the terms "lady" or "girl" for adult women is inappropriate. The quotebox that was provided gave an example of how women (in particular female nurses) are referred to by their first names. Could someone explain the concern with adding neutral captions to pictures? Using captions seems to be common on Wikipedia articles and essays, to give the reader information about the picture.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: captions, this isn't an article, so there's no need and they're quite distracting. Re: the quote box, it caused a visual problem, overlapping with another one, and isn't related to writing about women. We don't need a source that the tendency to call women by their first names, or calling them "girl," infantilizes them, but we can add one if wanted. Sarah ^(talk) 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point about the captions. I am not disagreeing that calling women by their first names in print (especially when men in the same article are referred to by their surnames) infantilizes them. I just think the point would be strengthened with a source (the way the point about "lady" and "girl" is supported with a source).OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The text in the sidebar did not say, though, that referring to women by their first name infantilized them, and so the connection to the main text was unclear. Plus the example isn't the best, since the consideration of professional rank clouds the issue. In my opinion, since Wikipedia's manual of style already states that all persons should be referred to by their last name, no further justification is required, and in fact the guidance "Use caution when referring to a woman by her first name..." is confusing, since this usage is already counter to Wikipedia's style guidelines. isaacl (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)