Talk:Bechdel test

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) —Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Extent of Limitations

Question: To what extent does discussing men cause a fail of the test? Admittedly this is the first time I have come across the concept, but it does strike me that in real life, two female friends meeting in conversation who know that the other is in a relationship would at least ask how each other's boyfriend/husband is doing? And consequently, that it would be unrealistic of the film to ignore this. So does that qualify for a fail, or is it the opposite and any mention of work/travel/the weather would cause a pass however small?

While I certainly don't feel qualified to edit this particular entry at all, I'd argue that the definition and consequently, the "limitations" section could do with significant expansion to discuss the exact consensus on pass/fail of this test? GGdown (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"it does strike me that in real life, two female friends meeting in conversation who know that the other is in a relationship would at least ask how each other's boyfriend/husband is doing?" -- Does it strike you that way about men, as well? "any mention of work/travel/the weather would cause a pass however small?" -- As long as it's not part of a conversation about men ... do read the article, as this is already discussed. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)