Talk:Bechdel test

"Baby Got Back"

Re this edit.

We do not have a reliable source directly saying the song passes the Bechdel test and is sexist. I would be less than shocked if we had a source saying the song is sexist. I would be fairly dumbfounded if a reliable source applied a test dealing with films to a song.

The source you are looking for must fit a few criteria:

1) It must directly state that the song is "sexist".

2) It must directly state that the film song "passes the Bechdel test".

3) It must be a reliable source (user edited sites, such as Wikipedia, are not reliable).

Piecing together sources that say there are two named women, they have a conversation about something other than a man, etc. is synthesis and of no help here.

(To drive the point home: You are unlikely to find a reliable source saying a particular song passes criteria for films. This would be like comparing a tossed salad to various French wines.) - SummerPhD (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read this article, the Bechdel Test applies to all works of fiction, not just films. Even if it were limited to films, music videos are a form of film and Baby Got Back is a music video.

I don't understand why you're objecting so vehemently to this edit; Baby Got Back very clearly passes the weak formulation of the Bechdel test (only one of the women in the conversation has a name: Becky, so it doesn't pass the stronger version of the test that requires named women, nor is the conversation long enough for the 60 second requirement). I guess this is just one of those examples of why Wikipedia is garbage.

Additionally, Charlie Stross's blog post doesn't qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's rules, so the bits citing him (while relevant, interesting, and possibly correct) should be deleted. It is from his personal blog and he is not an established expert in the relevant field, nor has he been published by reliable third-party publications - NJM (talk)

We still do not have a reliable source saying the song passes the Bechdel test. We have synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.  Sandstein  18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Objections to the opening passage (as it stands now)

I’d like to raise a couple of objections to the opening passage. First, it alters The Bechdel Test so that it applies to all fiction, as well as films. This is a mistake, because is essential to any hypothesis that the original statement be “locked down” as tightly as possible and preserved. The reason for this is that the moment of the first alteration, when a hypothesis becomes something different, then all the preceding considerations, applications, and correlaries all become invalidated by the expanded version. It’s a common occurance, and it’s a common tendency on Wikipedia. For example, the altered iteration in that opening passage takes a bit of pressure off of Hollywood films, so that when someone tries to use the Bechdel Test as a critique of films, that argument can be easily invalidated by some Hollywood executive arguing, “Let’s not suggest there is a particular problem with films, because as the Bechdel Test (according to Wikipedia!) points out — it is not just Hollywood! The issue occurs in all of literature!” And thus the original point can be dodged, and Hollywood can carry on. Or in any discussion of films, the Bechdel Test, can be brushed aside or watered down in the same way.

The change in the opening passage also opens the door to all kinds of changes, some examples are discussed above on this talk page.

Who has the authority to say what the Bechdel Test is or isn’t? It might be nice if it were Allison Bechdel. However it is the nature of Wikipedia that it isn’t strict about questions of “Who has the authority” — any publshed source will do. The opening passage, as it now stands, is not supported at all. So the “authoritiy” in this case is merely the anonymous Wikipedia editor who typed it.

The solution is simple: Faithfully accept the definition of the Bechdel Test as it was first concieved, and so clearly stated, then of course variations can be imagined or posited, just don’t alter the original definition. There’s no need, and it threatens Bechdel’s idea. Barklerung (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, which specific changes do you propose?  Sandstein  14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I think I understand what some of your concerns are, I think you basic premise is slightly off-track and most of your subsequent discussion follows from there.

First, a point of order: The Bechdel test, as discussed here, is an idea presented in a comic strip. Bechdel's "little lesbian joke in an alternative feminist newspaper" while insightful, useful and fun is not Newton's Principa. The original author likely thought about it for a while and eventually used it in a strip. I do not mean to disrespect Bechdel's work (and, by extension, Liz Wallace and Virginia Woolf's) in any way when I say the strip is likely not based on academic research or empirical data. Rather, it is an insight, distilled into five brief panels. That any meaningful discussion of the concept extends beyond that essence is neither unusual nor inappropriate. While we can and should remain true to the sources available to us, we are not in any way bound to protect the original idea as "The Bechdel test". We say what reliable sources say about the theory.

"Originally conceived for evaluating films, the Bechdel test is now used as an indicator of gender bias in all forms of fiction."

"Several variants of the test have been proposed..."

"...with the added requirement that the women must be named characters."

"In addition to films, the test has been applied to other media such as video games and comics."

The article does seem to do a reasonable job of calling out alterations to the original idea and citing sources for them. If you see areas where it falls short, certainly feel free to shore it up. We can certainly note -- as our sources do -- their variations to the original idea. The ideas expressed here should come from independent reliable sources, not simply "any published source" and certainly not any "anonymous Wikipedia editor who typed it".

As for people accepting self-serving arguments based on the description of a comic strip on Wikipedia, I have some land in Florida I'd love to sell them. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of this.  Sandstein  16:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether the Bechdel Test is a modest idea, or an idea as great as Newton's Principa — I don’t like to say, because my opinion in that way seems impertinant and I’d rather keep it out of the discussion, unless there’s a good reason. Of course, the Bechdel Test needs to be a “notable” idea in some way in order to exist as an article. However, I noticed that it is presented by WP as though it has been altered in a way that is a common form of erosion, and in a way that is not supported. The Bechdel Test is a relatively new idea that has hardly had time to be discussed and tested in it’s original form.

As the title of this section indicates my comments are limited to the opening passage. As to the suggestion (made above) that “We say what reliable sources say about the theory”, that is certainly not true regarding the opening passage. The claim that the Bechdel Test has been altered is not supported by any reliable source — it is simply stated — by whom? By some anonymous Wikipedia editor. The first two paragraphs contain no citations whatsoever. The third paragraph contains footnotes, but none of them support the idea of altering the Bechdel Test. Also those notes in the third paragraph are certainly not all reliable sources. One is a school paper that shows no sign of editing by anyone other than the author, one is a blog, and one is a comment by an anonymous Wikipedia editor. So when it’s suggested that “We say what reliable sources say”, the fact is we do not. This is a problem, as it violates the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing articles. Sources in this article don't go as far as the article does.

To respond the Sandstein, I’d suggest that the opening passage (with proper references) could be as follows:

The Bechdel test is seen as a challenge to the way women are represented in the film industry. It was introduced in Alison Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For. In a 1985 strip titled "The Rule”, an unnamed female character says that she only goes to a movie if it satisfies the following requirements:

1. The movie has to have at least two women in it,
2. who talk to each other,
3. about something besides a man.

Then in sections that follow mention can be made of variations -- if they are sourced. Barklerung (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What you propose isn't compliant with our manual of style at WP:LEAD, which says that an article's lead paragraph should be a summary of the whole article. We can't therefore just reproduce the original definition, but must touch on everything the article does. Besides, "a challenge to the way women are represented in the film industry" is a really vague way of addressing what the test is about. It's about sexism.  Sandstein  09:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at WP:LEAD (which you linked) and I see your point, the lead should include more than I suggested, as indicated at that page. Also I appreciate the sharper and clearer wording that you suggest with the use of the word “sexism”. Perhaps we can consider all this, and see what others have to say, and see what might be possible. Barklerung (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I edited the article, especially the lead section (which is discussed here). I edited the definition, because the idea that there is a “new” definition that has replaced the “old” definition was unsourced, now it follows the definition as reliable sources use it. I also added inline citations that support what’s in the lead section, and I tried to follow the WP guidelines on what a lead section is. I moved the various alternate names for the test to that part of the article that discusses variations. I added a quote that expresses the test clearly. Barklerung (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I reverted your edits because, in my view, they were detrimental to the quality of the article. Just looking at the lead alone, we should have a succinct definition of what this test is in the very first sentence, and not something vague like "is seen as a way to call attention to gender inequality". We also do not need verbatim reproductions of the test's questions , and not lengthy quoted commentary, especially not by somebody called "GrrlScientist" - that looks terribly unprofessional in a reference work. The lead is a concise summary, nothing more and nothing less. This level of detail and verbosity belongs in the article body, if at all.  Sandstein  15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein! Your above comment is not supported by Wikipedia policies. For example, you say “The lead is a concise summary, nothing more and nothing less.” That is absolutely not true according to WP:LEAD. Then you say, “We also do not need verbatim reproductions of the test's questions.” That’s not supported by any policy. If you believe that, your reversion didn’t remove the test questions. The way you removed reliable sources is also a viloation of WP policies. And you disapprove of the “look” of an author’s name? Excuse me, but seems improper, because doesn’t every author have the right to use and be referred to by the name she chooses? That’s how she publishes under the Guardian newspaper, which is a reliable source, which you removed because you aparently didn’t like the woman's name. So, your reversion leaves completely unsourced opening paragraphs. You shouldn’t treat Wikipedia as if anarchy reigns and the policies can be ignored. Barklerung (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional lead discussion

Gender inequality in fiction and it's alleged reason sexism are just that, someone's opinion. It shouldn't be presented as facts. I propose to change opening to something like this: The test is used by some as an indicator for the active presence of women in films and other fiction, and to call attention to what test supporters perceive as gender inequality in fiction due to sexism.[1]. I am not a native English speaker so the statement may not be very good from that perspective, but I hope it clearly shows what I have in mind. --Nomad (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but the impression I get from reading the sources cited here is that gender inequality, at least, in fiction, isn't really a fact that is in dispute. I mean, can you find a source that says that the Bechdel test measures or indicates something that doesn't exist? Also, "test supporters" implies that the test is something people support or oppose as one would a political opinion, which isn't the case: it seems there's just (a bit of) disagreement about how useful it is as a tool to measure gender disparity. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, we must reflect what sources say, and your proposed lead would make it seem that the test is much more controversial that it really is. I'd be ready to talk about ways to rephrase the lead to avoid the implication that gender disparity is necessarily due to (only) sexism, which I don't think we can present as a given.  Sandstein  16:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Finkbeiner test edit warlet

The other tests have at least a brief description of what the test is/does, so the Finkbeiner test should have one, too. I can understand it being a short one, rather than the full list, since the test has a page of its own, but people shouldn't have to follow the list to get at least a *vague* idea what the test is about. If you have any suggestions for a better way to state it...Tamtrible (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mako Mori test

I've undone the deletion of this section (which had been removed per WP:UNDUE). To explain: I do not think it has undue weight in the article (it's only two sentences and three bullet points) and, although it may have started on Tumblr, it has been referenced elsewhere and is suitably cited here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It was referenced in a trashy magazine, The Daily Dot, then the aggregate website The_Atlantic#The_Wire copy and pasted most of that article. And it still traces back to one anonymous tumblr user. The rabid fandom is shameless, as Mako's story does revolve around a man, and the neckbeards seem to think that just because she doesn't put out, that she doesn't serve as the love interest for the male lead. This is the bad journalism at its worst and it doesn't belong here. We're not going to be sucked into the Pacific Rim circlejerk. It's a dumb guy movie about robots fighting monsters, not some ambitious and risque masterpiece advancing the status of women in film. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If a deletion has been undone, why don't I see the Mako Mori test in the article, when I did the last time I looked at it? I went to this article just now, to get the name and definition right—gone without a trace, except for this mention on the Talk page! 2604:2000:F22D:5100:C931:7A81:2BCD:F5B (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The undoing of the deletion has been undone. In other words, I deleted it again. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest renaming article title to "Bechdel-Wallace test"

Based on Alison Bechdel's own preference (from her Fresh Air interview, should the title be properly renamed to give credit to Liz Wallace?