Wikipedia talk:Writing about women/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Waste of time?

I first saw this essay a few hours ago. It seems to be in many respects a waste of time in the context of the GGTF. It seems to be an attempt to promote a cause and that cause is only very tangentially related to the gap itself. I am sure that in some specific articles there aspects where more neutral language might be applied (covered by NPOV anyway, and it applies regardless of gender) but I'd appreciate some sort of analysis regarding why any of this would aid the general recruitment and retention of contributors. It seems to be a coatrack. I didn't familiarise myself with the goings-on when there was some hoo-hah about categorising women novelist/actors/whatever it was, but this seems to be yet another example of ghettoisation: these people are, erm, people. End of. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the coatrack essay more of an article content essay?
WP:WES says that essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. I'd say what we're trying to write here may represent a "minority" view, inasmuch as women on Wikipedia are a minority. I was just reviewing items under the task force to-do list, and it seems to me that this essay could help to improve women-related articles. Recruitment and retention aren't the only to-do items. Lightbreather (talk
) 01:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
(I'm going to take the liberty of breaking this off of the previous section, since it's not about the specific sections, but about the essay as a whole. Feel free to retitle.) Si, we all have the right to waste our time in the way we see best. :-) In fact, I expect we each know quite a few people who think this whole Wikipedia thing is a waste of time! Personally I think the idea of proposing a guideline about how to write about women has merit, because there have been a few issues that have been brought up about articles about women having second class citizen status, from the "women writers" categories, to the "known most for their relationships" issues, to objectification pictures. And I do think this will help recruitment; it has been shown that women are noticeably more interested in articles about women than men are, so it is useful we make articles about women more female friendly. We will hash this over as a mere essay for a while, then when we have agreed ... or at least reached Wikipedia:Consensus ... will propose it as such. It's not ready yet. --GRuban (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove "Male gaze"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose we remove this language, since it is blatantly sexist and offensive. Above, Sarah writes that it is a useful summary, but that is neither correct, nor sufficient reasoning to keep sexist and offensive language. It is sexist and offensive because it implies strongly that all males and only males sexually objectify women merely by looking at them. Clearly this is not true, as there are plenty of men who do not see women as sex objects - feminists, homosexuals, asexuals, those who are solely interested in existing relationships, and merely kind men. In addition there are plenty of women who sexually objectify women; our very article section male gaze cites the creator of the term as writing that the female gaze is the same as the male gaze.

But more importantly, even if it were correct, meaningful and useful, we are subverting our own goals of reducing sexism in the Wikipedia by introducing sexism into the very essay/proposed guideline on how to do this. We should use sexual objectification; it may or may not have exactly the same meaning, but it is sufficient, and it does not subvert our own goals. --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a well-known concept and a succinct way of summing up what we want to avoid. It doesn't imply that all men always see women as sex objects. The point is that women are often represented in images and film (and language) as if for a heterosexual male audience – seen through the eyes of heterosexual men – and we find that this happens on WP a lot.
As for your point that feminists, etc, do not see women that way, they do unless they make strong efforts not to. We're all raised with the male gaze, and women and men both internalize it. One of the reasons that it's important to identify it on WP and remove it is that young girls come here to learn about themselves, and "male gaze" images are damaging to them. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That it is a well known concept and a succinct way of summing up are not sufficient to make up for its offensiveness. Imagine if we were writing an article about a woman with light colored hair and below average wisdom, should we then write that she was a
dumb blonde because it is a well known concept and a succinct way of summing up? Surely not. It's sexist and offensive. As for your second point, it is first, self contradictory - if even females are raised with the "male gaze", then that word is not a useful summary description - and second, again both offensive, and simply not true. How do you know how I was raised? Now you're not just offending me, but those who raised me. --GRuban (talk
) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
GRuban, it's possible that you were raised by feminists and had no access to magazines, newspapers, films or television, including ads, until you were too old to be affected by them, but otherwise you and I and everyone else grew up surrounded by images of women as seen by heterosexual men. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I am arguing the usage of a phrase. The phrase is offensive and sexist. Remember when someone was using a slang term for female anatomy to describe someone they didn't like? Then they went on to say that it was a correct description, that it was a well known concept, and a succinct way of summing up. And their supporters said that the description was valid and they fully supported that someone's right to use it. Are you sure you want to be that someone? --GRuban (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is someone talking about the "white gaze", namely certain assumptions white people may make about black people (Self and Other again). Black people living in societies that are racist toward them might internalize that too to some extent, by developing low self-esteem, etc. Recall that it was the black domestic help who was most offended by the black boyfriend in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. We see ourselves as others see us, whether we realize it or not. I'm not offended by the term "white gaze". It makes perfect sense, and I'd like to know how to spot it and avoid it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I recall that was almost exactly what the defenders of that namecalling wrote. The way to avoid being called that is to stop being one, I recall their phrasing was. And since when did "I am not offended by this, so you shouldn't be offended by that" become a valid argument? --GRuban (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. Here is the Venus of Willendorf. It is a prime example of what we mean when write "image from the male gaze" - correct? "Parts of the body associated with fertility and childbearing have been emphasized ... The figure has no visible face." Emphasizing curves, de-emphasizing intelligence, personality, basic humanity, all that stuff? This is exactly what we mean, right? Agree? Well, I hope we can also agree that the artist was not "affected by ... magazines, newspapers, films or television, including ads" - because it's 28,000 years old. So it's not what you say male gaze is. And yet it is clearly what we mean. If even we don't understand what "male gaze" means, how can we expect our readers to? --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Male gaze can be internalized through internalized misogyny. It is a result of social conditioning that we internalize these messages. SlimVirgin's arguments above are valid and I wholly support them. — kikichugirl oh hello! 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing the sentence regarding male gaze. I think it's very reasonably written: Avoid images that objectify women. In particular, do not use pornography images in articles that are not about pornography, and avoid obvious examples of
    downblouse and upskirt)). If someone doesn't see women that way and is offended by this, then it seems such users won't be adding such images already. This is not an attack on men, but rather an effort to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia. That heterosexual men often see women in terms of their sexual attractiveness is not an attack on men. Lingering on her curves or seeing her in erotic terms is not something horrible or evil, but images that depict this type of view are simply not best for Wikipedia. They are not neutral. --BoboMeowCat (talk
    ) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understood what I'm saying - I agree we should say this, I just think we should not use those two words to say it. We should use sexual objectification rather than male gaze. That's all. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The male gaze is an incredibly basic concept in the study of gender in reliable sources, and it shouldn't be removed here based on a male user's reflexive dislike of it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's nice. We're here to fight sexism, but you're arguing that my opinion is less important because I'm male? Please remember that next time you argue that a woman's opinion shouldn't be discounted because she is female. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Another approach

OK, clearly "it's offensive" isn't sufficient, because I'm a male user, so offending me isn't a problem. Let's try another approach. Let's look at our article Male gaze. Let's follow that link. (It's not an article, it's a section in another article... but I'm sure if someone really works on it they can expand it, if it is such an incredibly basic concept.) It says this is a "

second-wave feminist
concept ... in film". So to truly understand it, you need to be versed in second wave feminism; ideally in second wave feminist film criticism. It's also a pretty complex concept, if it really does include, as Sarah writes above: "We're all raised with the male gaze, and women and men both internalize it". I hope you'll all agree that the idea of the words "male gaze" actually being both male and female, and internalized, are pretty subtle and complex?

We're writing this as a proposed guideline for all people to read who write about women. Since it is a rare article that doesn't mention any women, that includes all editors. Not just those already well versed in second wave feminism. So far agreed?

So we should not use such a complex term. We should use words that people - all people - our audience - will understand without taking a semester in second wave feminist studies. (Ideally we should also prefer words that people would not be offended by, but, sigh. Amazing how we're so big on not being offended by men, but offending men is no big deal.) Sexual objectification is more straight forward; it's treating a person primarily as an object of sexual attractiveness, a "sex object". It's also a feminist concept, as we can read by following that link, but it's not self contradictory. It doesn't say "male" and actually mean "women and men". It doesn't claim anything about how we are all raised, because we don't know how our readers were raised, and it's presumptuous of us to pretend we do. It doesn't blame modern media, when clearly the idea predates modern media. It just says exactly what we want to say; "don't use images that treat women like sex objects", understandably and clearly and without offending. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I've never even heard of "second-wave feminism" and couldn't tell you anything about it, but I had no trouble getting the gist of male gaze. I think this sentence from that section on male gaze sums it up well: The male gaze[8] occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body... It goes on to describe the male gaze in terms of a viewing as erotic object. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup... and that understanding is wrong! Notice that Sarah says that male gaze is the gaze of both men and women, and applies to still images. So either you understood it wrong, or Sarah is explaining it wrong, or both; any of which shows how complex the concept is. Note also that we, those developing this page, have thought about these issues for a lot more than most editors, so can be expected to understand these concepts strictly better than the average editor. If even we are having trouble with this concept, imagine how much more trouble the average editor will have. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the point there seems to be that the media's frequent portrayal of a male gaze, leads women to internalize it as well, and to also view women in terms their erotic appeal to heterosexual men. I think male gaze is a good link to expand and clarify on a concept very similar to, but not exactly the same as sexual objectification, and that it is useful and belongs in this essay regarding writing about women. I fear you are making this more complicated than it needs to be because it seems you don't like it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I more than don't like it, I am offended by it. I don't like olives, death metal, and suspenders, but I don't object to them being in Wikipedia guidelines. But that I was offended obviously didn't matter to most participants, so I'm trying this other approach, that's it's also too complex to be easily understood. I can use your post as an example. You agree the male gaze concept blames the media? Then it's not what we want. See the Venus of Willendorf, which is clearly not the media's fault; agree? --GRuban (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
GRuban, I think you may have misunderstood the idea, and you're attributing to people things they didn't say. Perhaps we could move on to another issue and leave this one for later? Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If I have misunderstood the idea - and I've been a Wikipedia editor for about 10 years, and a feminist for about 30 - do you really think it is easily understandable for the average Wikipedia editor that is our target audience? --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I had never even heard of the term until it appeared in a thread at
WT:GGTF some time in the last week or two. It sounds like something that has spun out of the women's studies/feminist studies industry in the US, which really doesn't have much impact in the UK and probably even less in places such as India. Consequently, it probably seems more sexist to me than perhaps it does to someone in the US, and especially to someone in the US who is close to the feminist studies circles. It may not be particularly useful to engage in potentially misleading and obscure terminology.

While I am here, I'll also restate my opposition to the "no porn unless it is an article about porn" mantra that was also quoted above: each case should be on its merits, which includes the range of images that are available for a given subject. There are a lot of ideas that are poorly thought through coming out of the project at the moment. - Sitush (talk

) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately we haven't "released" either of these ideas yet, Si. We're in the thinking through phase right here. Thanks for helping that thinking through go well, rather than poorly. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I read this page and I see collaborative language like "I think," and "my opinion" and then I read above: There are a lot of ideas that are poorly thought through coming out of the project at the moment. Sitush, could you enumerate the current GGTF ideas that you think are poorly thought through? Lightbreather (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
LB, I'd prefer if that was done elsewhere. I don't want this page turning into another WT:GGTF. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Venus of Willendorf is an extremely ancient artifact whose cultural relevance is unknown, but some believe to be a related to fertility and childbearing. Venus of Willendorf has little to nothing to do with male gaze in terms of what is factually known about this ancient artifact, and honestly, at this point, it's starting to seem as if you are just throwing out any old argument hoping something might stick, in hopes of discrediting something you don't like. This doesn't seem very productive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Collaborative suggestions are good, but authoritative statements about the wording in an essay are not appropriate. If some editors don't like specific wording such as "male gaze" they are welcome to write an essay showing the corruption and calumny associated with such wording. There is no requirement that everyone be happy with an essay. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sure. If this is intended to remain a personal essay; but it won't be very influential, then. I thought that the idea was to collaborate and propose this as a guideline. For that, it won't be enough to just have us agree, we would also need to convince the rest of the Wikipedia. Wearing off the rough edges are quite important there. --GRuban (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
At the moment it's a draft of a user essay that a few people were invited to collaborate on. If we're able to produce a decent draft, then what you say might apply, though I think hosting it as an essay would be fine. Essays are influential if people pay attention to them, so that's what matters, not whether we call it a guideline. But regardless, please don't strangle it at birth (consider whether anyone would enjoy putting themselves through this kind of debate). For now, we can note that "male gaze" is something you object to, but please let's move on to more constructive collaboration. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Male gaze is an incredibly mainstream concept in any discussion of gender, especially in any kind of academic sources but in the public realm as well, and that it makes one male Wikipedia user really angry doesn't change its validity or existence in the real world. It has just as much relevance in the UK or India as it does in the US - it comes down to a basic question: are we trying to do this job based on mainstream reliable sources or are we writing like our desired demographic is the combined population of Reddit and 4chan? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I seem to be confused. If this is a user essay then why does it appear to be in some sort of GGTF space? I have just realised - simply because SV mentioned it above - that GGTF has been created as an alternate account for SlimVirgin, which muddies the waters even more. I came to it because GRuban mentioned the thing on
WT:GGTF and so I assumed it was a sub-page of the GGTF project. Now I find that it was a personal rumination to which certain selected people were invited to contribute. I have not received an invitation from User:GGTF and so presumably should not be here. Smoke and mirrors, and yet another example of ghettoisation? - Sitush (talk
) 02:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The Drover, take it from me, an intelligent and pretty well-read outsider who even subscribes to The Guardian that SlimVirgin to which so often links: "male gaze" is not a familiar context in the global sense. It might be familiar to those who follow academic discussions of gender but those are mostly centred on the US-based industry and most people do not follow such discussions anyway, which makes it an obscure term to use given that most contributors are just here to, well, contribute. Are some images aimed at men? Obviously, yes, and almost certainly some do appear unnecessarily among the 4.5 million of our articles, just as numerous other gnomish issues appear (one of my pet dislikes is "passed away" but hey-ho). The same gaze applies in reverse, and sometimes it applies to both and perhaps also to various identities in between the two. The intent might be ok but the phrasing is dreadful, obscurantist and exclusionary. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference for "ladies"?

"Do not refer to adult women as girls or ladies." needs a bit of explanation. "Girls" seems straightforward, as infantilizing, but "ladies" needs a reference for why it is also considered patronizing. (Men are very rarely offended by being called sir or gentleman.) I tried to find one, but could only find message boards and private blogs.[1][2][3][4] I gather Robin Lakoff wrote a book about this, but have not read it and don't own a copy to cite. Anyone have better references? --GRuban (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added some sources; see current footnote 16. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
To the extent that "lady" is similar to "gentleman", neither is appropriate for describing people who don't fit the literal meanings of those words; whether or not they're patronising or complimentary, they carry subjective implications. Also, is it necessary to say that "girl" is inappropriate for grown women? I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be appropriate in formal contexts.
talk
) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh it's necessary all right. Here is an editor referring to "girls who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections" - on the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force no less. And of course for "Lady", there are the LPGA, and Ladies' Home Journal, and right here on this page we're actively encouraging the use of First Lady of the United States for a number of people who were never called that during their lives. --GRuban (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's disappointing that no one seemed to see what EvergreenFir was getting at, but this essay is about articles and I still can't imagine "girl" being used that way in an article. The examples of "lady" you cite are fixed phrases that we have little choice about; while you make a fair point about First Lady, it has a literal meaning distinct from "lady", so the same arguments don't apply to both.
talk
) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Now you're veering into No true Scotsman territory. (When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.) First you write you can't imagine anyone using it that way; then I show someone using it that way, and you say, you meant in articles. OK, here are lots of articles using "girl/girls" to refer to grown woman/women. Category:Bond girls; Category:Page 3 girls; Girl group; Category:Girl groups (35 subcategories); Girls with guns; Girl power... Are you now going to write, "but I didn't mean in the title or in the categories"? --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't write that I "can't imagine anyone using it that way"; I wrote "I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be appropriate in formal contexts", where "formal contexts" refers to articles, since talk pages are considerably more informal. Furthermore, the examples you give must remain per the objective rule of
talk
) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The great Sarah (SlimVirgin), before whom we must all bow, has added specific examples of such usage in articles to the main page. --GRuban (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

I suggest it may be instructive to "show, don't just tell" by using gender-neutral language for this essay, in accordance with its own advice. isaacl (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for something to change? I can't see anything that's problematic in that way. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
For example, "Refer to persons by their surnames..."; "Do not define notable persons... in terms of their relationships to others.... Place emphasis on their own accomplishments and achievements." "Avoid images that objectify humans."; "When adding an image of a portion of the human body..." isaacl (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an essay about women. As such, the usage of woman is necessary... even though we're supposed to do this with all humans, some people fail to. Isaacl, I don't think you understand the point of this essay. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The context is established by the essay's title and introductory paragraphs. I understand strong writing principles very well; the use of gender-neutral language helps avoid gender-based stereotypes. Illustrating this point would better achieve the goals of the essay. isaacl (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "mankind": "humanity" is the traditional gender-neutral version. isaacl (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: examples with women or topics discussing male/female distinctions naturally require using sex-specific terms. For example, the first section, "Male is not the default", could not be written using gender-neutral language. The examples in the section "Use surnames" should also be illustrative of articles on women. However, where general principles are being presented, following the gender-neutral language principle presented within the article better drives home the point of the effectiveness of this approach. It also avoids cognitive dissonance, where someone reading the gender-neutral language guidance is left wondering, why was it not followed within certain phrases, and is distracted, making them less likely to absorb the rest of the article. isaacl (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Isaac, again, if you could give an example from the draft, it would help. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused; I did give examples from the draft. The one regarding relationships to others has been copyedited since, but the others remain. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you say what remains? I can't see anything. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, if you mean "Avoid images that objectify humans," then no, this is about women. If you mean examples where only general principles are being stated, then please give an example. But I think this is a side-track. We're offering recommendations on how to write about women, so we're clearly not going to use gender-neutral language when discussing it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
For example, the following general principles could be written using gender-neutral language:
  • "Refer to persons by their surnames..."
  • "Avoid images that objectify humans."
  • "When adding an image of a portion of the human body..."
The principle regarding relationships can also be written more generally:
  • "In titles and initial sentences of articles, avoid defining subjects in terms of their relationships with others (for example, 'wife of', 'mother of', and 'daughter of'). Place emphasis on their own accomplishments and achievements."
Examples and further elaborations can be given using women as examples (such as the example "wife of"), as appropriate for the context of this essay. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Good topic - perhaps a twin topic

This will be very useful for very many people. With some luck this could become a standard for all those sites on the internet which want to make an effort to attract women readers or editors.

There are many members of different cultures, ages, etc editing Wikipedia, and many whose 1st language is not English. This can only be helpful. I'll suggest that you move away from strict rules and move toward the sense behind the rules. Or perhaps just keep the strict rules, and make it part of MOS.

Probably a more controversial effort would be to let editors know how not to insult women on talk pages and other discussions. An obvious example: Don't drop the C-bomb in a conversation that might involve a woman editor (that's just about every conversation on-Wiki). I know this has been discussed to death, but somebody should probably spell it out where everybody can see it. Throwing the C-bomb into a conversation, without actually calling somebody a C-bomb, is going to be seen as intentionally insulting about half the potential readership.

There are many other rules for polite discussions, that we would hope don't need to be spelled out, that apparently do need to be spelled out. Perhaps that should be the next project. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On this page, it would be better to focus on the topic of the essay—writing articles about women. Use some other page for epic battles. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote "Perhaps that should be the next project." I'll suggest those more closely involved than I am decide.
I just have to say that I grew up in a culture where using the c-bomb (and half-a-dozen other words) in a mixed conversation would have been considered an insult to all the women within hearing distance, indeed to the community as a whole. That may be a minority view now in many parts of the US and Europe, but there were and still are many good reasons for that view, and I doubt it is in the minority around the globe. Given that (am I wrong?), how can we possibly exclude so many editors by intentionally insulting them. We may disagree, please let those more closely involved decide. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Bobo and Tara, thanks for the changes you made. Tara, good point about linking, following on from that academic paper. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Using surnames

Regarding the use of surnames: I believe the guidance can be more prescriptive than "be cautious", due to the manual of style already specifying that surnames should be used. For example: In accordance with

Wikipedia's guidance on the use of surnames, after a name is first mentioned, refer to the person by surname only. Please see the guideline for more details. isaacl (talk
) 03:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Isaac, that's helpful. I'll change that and add the link. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I pinged some people on the GGTF page, but missed a few who might be interested in developing this, including Jayen466, Smallbones and kikichugirl. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging Johnuniq, Tony1, Kaldari. Sarah (SV) (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. It's sad that all of this stuff should be common sense, but it isn't... — kikichugirl speak up! 03:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It's nice to see you here, kikichugirl. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Regarding the note on the images, I've been looking all over for a place to back me up. There was even an ANI discussion today about these images things, not sure if it's still going on. I just remember that there was this that I did a while back, and I (along with the rest of my women's college (when I told them afterward) were pretty disturbed by what we found. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Those are good examples, including this, which you changed to this. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
kikichugirl, I've removed the NOTINHERITED link for now, because it makes a slightly different point, though I think we can re-introduce it somewhere else. At the moment that section is about notable women being defined in articles about them in terms of their male relationships. Sarah (SV) (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging @Victoriaearle:. Hi Victoria, you'd be very welcome to help write this. Best, Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, belated response. I have a bit of an unorthodox philosophy about this, but won't spend too much time belaboring it. One of the examples I meant to use to respond was
Brontë sisters it's trickier because there were three. Bottom line is that I try to apply commonsense as much as possible. Hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk
) 22:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, this is very helpful, thank you, and just the sort of thing that needs to go into the essay. In particular I like your point about not using the surname when it points to an unhappy marriage. Feel free to add something about using commonsense (with your examples or only general guidance, as you prefer), or if you'd rather not I'm happy to do it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability because of gender or relationships

Our advice "Do not begin an article with 'A was the first woman to do X' or 'A was the first female X'." is, in many cases, in direct contradiction of

WP:LEADSENTENCE
, which says "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence."

An example would be Bonnie Tiburzi, the recent article worked on by a number of GGTF members. Its current lede is two sentences, "Bonnie Tiburzi (born 31 August 1948), is an American aviator. She became the first female pilot for a commercial airline in the United States when she was hired by American Airlines in 1973." The subject is not notable as an aviator; she is notable as the first female commercial airline pilot. So that should be in the first sentence.

Similarly, our advice "Do not define a notable woman, in an article or title, in terms of her relationships with notable men (wife of, mother of, daughter of). Her relationships with notable people can be included, but make sure her own notability is prioritized." is, in a number of prominent cases, impossible to fulfill, for example Barbara Bush, Martha Washington, Mary Todd Lincoln, and numerous others whose notability can only be defined in terms of their relationships with notable men.

Both of these are still good goals, but need to be set off with "when possible" or similarly; because in a number of articles will be not possible. --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In order to cover a broader set of scenarios regarding not defining a person in terms of their relationship with another (and incidentally use gender-neutral language), I also suggest that the end of the sentence should be "in terms of her relationships with other persons...". isaacl (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I implemented as best I could. Isaacl: I can see your point, and don't necessarily oppose it, but I can also see the point of those who write that this is, after all, the "Writing about women" essay. I see there is a separate discussion about that point here, if it is decided in the favor of gender neutral language, we can certainly change that here as well. --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
For example, should one day Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon become sufficiently notable to warrant an article, the first sentence should reflect her independent notability, and not the fact that she is the daughter of Madonna. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
GRuban, I'm about to remove some those edits, and restore some that you removed. Male gaze, for example, is an important concept, and a useful way of summing up what to avoid. Sexual objectification doesn't cover it; it goes beyond what some people would see as that. Also, some of the articles you cited were problematic; I wouldn't write those articles the way you were recommending. I think before recommending the status quo we should make sure that it really is the best approach, and not just the way things are done currently.
Isaac, re: gender-neutral language: this is about writing about women, not writing about persons. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
If Lourdes becomes notable as, for example, an actor, why should the first sentence in an article about her say she is the daughter of Madonna? isaacl (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't. My comment was about your request that we use gender-neutral language, even though this is about women. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps for clarity, this discussion can be continued in the section above, rather than this one, where the comments were specifically on the prominence of noting a subject's relationships with others? isaacl (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Sarah, you suggest

Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? For example, Norma Major? --GRuban (talk
) 19:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've written "Try to avoid defining a notable woman ... in terms of her relationships," which acknowledges that sometimes it might have to happen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
May I then return the specific examples for each case? I've found examples to be very useful in guidelines. I will try to use examples that you agree with, but we want at least one specific case of when we should do X and one when we can not do X. --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we discuss them first? The reason I'm hesitant about real examples is in case we end up promoting the status quo. The point of the essay is to make people think, and not to confirm that "this is the way it is done and therefore ought to be done". The example would have to be one where most people who had thought a lot about these issues would be likely to agree. Also, if we're going to say of a woman "she is notable only in terms of others," it might be better to choose a non-BLP. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course. One example of each. I believe I had
Melinda French for the "lead with personal notability" argument, and I guess Martha Jefferson for the counterargument; what say you? I had Marie Curie for the "not first woman" argument, and we'll have to look a bit for the counterargument; Bonnie Tiburzi could work, but it's a pretty small article so far, so maybe something larger. Please discuss. --GRuban (talk
) 23:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello? You wanted to discuss? --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking around for examples. Will post them soon. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language (2)

This section advises against using masculine pronouns where the sentence may also refer to women, but goes on to suggest using feminine pronouns as an alternative. If generic feminine pronouns are acceptable, surely they are no more so than generic masculine pronouns? am I missing something?

talk
) 22:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ekips, it's quite common (for example, in academia) to use the feminine pronoun as a way of emphasizing the overuse of the masculine, so that's one option. The essay includes others. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with Ekips (and edited as much, but you reverted me). Two wrongs do not make a right, and our articles are not here to emphasize the overuse of the masculine, but to convey the meaning of each article, individually, not to somehow make up for the grammar used in other articles. That is why I prefer and proposed the singular they. I see you kept that suggestion, but moved it to the end, to deemphasize it (our own text states that moving something later deemphasizes it), and stated it was controversial. I note you don't write that using the female pronoun is controversial, though it surely is. I would also suggest that the singular they is much more common than the use of the feminine pronoun for both, less controversial, and certainly has more authority (chronologically no less than Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen; if they didn't make the modern English language, no one did). --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have a source saying it's more common than generic she in formal writing, I'd appreciate seeing it; the sources I'm reading say otherwise. But regardless, the essay offers them all as options. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Scientific studies:
Less scientific, but arguably more influential:
The last few also mention that this allows for including people who do not identify with a particular gender, and prefer being referred to as "they/them/their". I have a friend like that. We shouldn't make the Wikipedia more inclusive to one minority at the expense of making it less inclusive to another. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Also there is this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html which says "Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) already finds the singular they acceptable 'even in literary and formal contexts,'", but, most interestingly, that the "singular they" predated the "generic he", and was paradoxically only replaced by the "generic he" by one Anne Fisher, a "feminist" grammarian. --GRuban (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: the first source above, can you point to where it says singular they is used more than generic she in formal writing? Re: second source above, the paper by Elisabetta Adami, is one I use in the essay. I'm looking at figure 5, p. 294, which shows the singular they is used less than he, she and s/he. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The first source doesn't say anything is used more than anything -- it just says that singular they is no more surprising to readers than expected pronouns, and that pronouns that were the opposite of what was expected were the most surprising. It could be used to argue that singular they is a better choice than generic she, I suppose.
An option we don't seem to have explored is alternating between he and she or using different genders of pronouns to emphasise different people or groups, which is sometimes used. I have a bunch of the
talk
) 00:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite right - the first source gives multiple points in favor of the use of "singular they", not based on common use. I would hope the fact that it is more readable is more important than that it is common - after all, the whole point of this effort is to change what is common (as "generic he" is more common still). The second source gives different results from different data sources; the earlier tables show "singular they" used more often, but Sarah is right this table shows "generic she" used more often, I did miss that. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ekips, I've added that as an option. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I still think singular they should be more highly recommended than generic she, though. The sources above don't seem to endorse generic she and several of them recommend singular they, including this which mentions generic she being often alternated with he. I also strongly suspect that generic she is still less common than generic he, so regardless of how common generic she is, if we're going by what's most common we shouldn't favour she over he. I notice that Robin Lakoff, the author of a book listed in the references for this essay, consistently uses generic he where the gender is not otherwise specified, which I find jarring in an otherwise feminist work.
talk
) 02:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Ekips, generic she is common in academic writing, but regardless I don't think we should recommend any of the alternatives, especially as this is an essay, not a guideline. It seems good enough to list them. A lot will depend on context and individual writers' taste. Sarah (SV) (talk)
16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I must not have made my point clearly enough. This is indeed an essay, but essays are also recommendations, albeit less strong, and the goal is to turn this essay into a guideline, isn't it? The language used also looks very much like recommendations: "Do not use..." "consider using..." "consider writing...". However, all that is tangential to my original point, which is that advising against using generic he ("Do not use masculine pronouns where the sentence might refer to women too") and suggesting generic she as an alternative ("consider using feminine pronouns") is unjustified. I've said what I have to say.
talk
) 19:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You did make your point clearly. Perhaps what is being missed is that people use the generic she, particularly in academia, to highlight their rejection of the generic he; it's not that one is simply swapped for the other. Perhaps I should add and source that. I'm writing this as an essay, by the way, not as a proposed guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I again agree with Ekips39. The distinction between essay and guideline in this case seems moot - we are either making recommendations or we aren't. A guideline has been accepted by the community, while an essay has merely been accepted by its writers, but even in an essay if we are making recommendations that we don't believe in, that seems silly at best. If "we" aren't writing this, but merely "you" are, then I guess no one else has a voice, but then it probably shouldn't be slugged under User:GGTF. ("L'État, c'est moi"? :-)) --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The sole use of the generic female or male pronoun is not something I'd do myself or feel comfortable with in a WP article; but to use the female generic alone after millenia of unfair male power over females is altogether less offensive, if we have to have a view on it.

    There are several alternatives, none of them without problems: "s/he", "she/he", "he/she", "she or he", "he or she", "they". In long texts, I've seen a very good solution that might not work elsewhere: "she" refers to one type of actor and "he" to another, by explicit designation (in the seminal book on the selectorate theory). Whatever way, there's a bunch of compelling reasons we can't go back to the generic male alone. Tony (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm very glad to see you here, as I was about to ask if you'd be willing to look over this at some point. I'd be interested to hear whether anything obvious is missing, poorly expressed, etc, or whether you can recommend sources I ought to be reading. And if you'd like to edit it, I would welcome that, whether a copy edit or new material. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Writing_about_women/Archive_1&oldid=1142659137"