Talk:Bechdel test

Grey's Anatomy

Grey's Anatomy is a terrible example of a show that fails the Bechdel Rule, since it *passes* the test all the time. While relationships with men are often major plots, so is competition between the female interns for surgical roles, Meredith's struggle to live up to the legend of her mother, the troublesome relationship she has with her mother when she develops Alzheimer's Disease, Christina's obsession with becoming a 'cardio god', and so on. The female characters have conversations about these things all the time. I'm removing that line since it's clearly misleading. Saint91 (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That may well be so, but we're supposed to follow published sources, not engage in original research. And the cited NPR feature does mention Grey's Anatomy as an example of failing works.  Sandstein  14:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's original research when you're *adding* material to articles for which there are no reliable sources. It's not original research when you make the editorial choice not to add to an article from an otherwise reliable source because it is demonstrably inaccurate.

If I came across a strange BBC article which stated that Tony Blair has one ear, I might not be able to find a reliable source which explicitly says Tony Blair has two ears, but it would be easy to establish if the article was accurate or not by looking at pictures of him. In such a case, the common sense thing to do would to avoid using the BBC article as a source.

Similarly, I can establish that the Bechdel Test is passed by Grey's Anatomy all the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYSzJIPzq9Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-wFQyYnlq8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x25e-5hdZE Saint91 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Determining that a reliable source is inaccurate is also an act of (original) research, especially in a case such as this, where passing the test is often a matter of judgment (see the section "Limitations"). I tend to agree with you on the basis on the excerpts linked to above, but these only apply to the individual episodes at issue. As regards the whole show, we have to defer to sources.  Sandstein  16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with the removal of Grey's anatomy. Examples are not essential parts of an article, and if there are good arguments for not including them, there is no need to include them. Furhtermore, did you check the quality of the source? It is just someone expressing an opinion on the radio. Lova Falk talk 20:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

This edit removes a tag which is so obviously valid that I find it difficult to believe it was confusing. The article blends together a number of different observations under the same title, some of which (such as Woolf's) not only predate it by decades but have no evidence to link them to the observation in question. Wikipedia is not the place to piece these together into a coherent argument. The tag should be restored until this work has been completed, which will probably necessitate excising any parts of it that don't demonstrably have a connection to Bechdel's comic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit perplexing. Admittedly the Woolf essay predates the Bechdel test, but I don't think it's original research to mention it here: it serves only to provide a bit of historical context for the broader issue of the role of women in fiction. We don't make any original claims with regard to it, like for example that Bechdel was influenced by Woolf, or some such. Everything else is sourced directly to works that cover Bechdel's test or its application. Can you provide a specific example of a statement in the article that you think is synthetis or otherwise original research?  Sandstein  14:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies: deeper inspection of the sources does suggest that they (other than Woolf) do indeed refer back to the original material. I still think the Woolf section needs to go unless a reliable secondary source ties it to the phenomenon, as in my mind it's a textbook example of SYN to introduce "precursors" to modern inventions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:SYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I think that's not what the Woolf quote does. It does not state or imply a connection between Woolf's observation and the much later Bechdel test, but is there only to illustrate that the role of women in fiction was a subject of discussion even before the 1980s. An argument could be made that this would more properly belong in an article with a broader scope, though.  Sandstein  20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs in a more widely-scoped article. It's important to note that this article's subject is not "bias in the portrayal of women in fiction", but specifically a device used to examine that concept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposite

Is there a term for an opposite test where 2 men have to talk about an issue other than women? Ranze (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Accepted media norm"? One of the striking points of the Bechdel test might be that it appears quite ridiculous when reversed, because the vast majority of media passes that reversed test without anyone needing to dig for the relevant male conversation. 87.158.24.118 (talk)

Alison Bechdel

shouldn't Alison Bechdel's name appear earlier in the article? it currently doesn't appear until 2nd paragraph of History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensorsweep (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, done.  Sandstein  06:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)