Talk:Bechdel test

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bechdel test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316161800/http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-13243-comic-con-vs-the-bechdel-test.html to http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-13243-comic-con-vs-the-bechdel-test.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Intro section

The introductory sentence is very poor - it does not tell the reader what the Bechdel test actually is - it only says what it does.

The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ BEK-dəl) asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man.

I added an explanation complete with a reliable source, which was immediately removed for being "unsourced", which has not helped the article at all. Here was my addition - you may disagree with it or think it's inaccurate, in which case do please improve it instead of just deleting it.

The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ BEK-dəl) is a critical approach in Feminist film theory and Feminist literary criticism that aims to evaluate the portrayal of women in a film. It asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The requirement that the two women must be named is sometimes added.

References

Thanks ever so much. Cnbrb (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't access the cited source, could you reproduce it? Another problem is that per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article, and the content "critical approach in Feminist film theory and Feminist literary criticism that aims to evaluate the portrayal of women in a film" isn't found in the body of the article. Sandstein 09:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a link to Google books. You should be able to access it by clicking on the link. But I'm not bothered about that - perhaps you can refer to a better source. It sounds to me like the article needs to be rewritten, if the lead cannot say what the Bechdel test actually is. Is it a medical test? A maths test? I mean, you are welcome to completely rewrite what I wrote - I'm not precious about my choice of words, but in its current form, the intro does not explain adequately to the average reader what the article is about. It's an interesting topic and deserves better explanation. Cnbrb (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I agree that a concise definition would be helpful, but we'd need a source for this. I can't readily find a basis in the source you cite for the definition you propose, "a critical approach in Feminist film theory and Feminist literary criticism that aims to evaluate the portrayal of women in a film". Which page were you referencing? The source is very helpful otherwise, though, and we should be able to use it to improve the article. Sandstein 11:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite and get a better source. I don't dispute if it's not the best, but I'm sure you'll be able to compile something more accurate. Mainly, what I'd like to read in the lead is

1. what sort of test it is (film criticism, lit crit, whatever)
2. what the cultural/political context is (a specific branch of feminist thinking perhaps)
3. what it aims to achieve

I'll leave that in your capable hands! Thanks again. Cnbrb (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the reference should also mention the author of the chapter that was used, and the full title of the chapter. The full reference would be: {{cite book |last1=Savigny |first1=Heather |last2=Thorsen |first2=Einar |last3=Jackson |first3=Daniel |last4=Alexander |first4=Jenny |title=Media, Margins and Popular Culture |date=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9781137512819 |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Er2hCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT32&dq=Bechdel%20test%20%22feminist%20film%20theory%22&pg=PT32#v=onepage&q&f=false |accessdate=1 June 2018 |language=en |chapter=1. No SMall-Tak in Paradise: Why Elysium Fails the Bechdel Test, and Why We Should Care (by Christa van Raalte)}} Christa van Raalte is this scientist: [[1]]. Apparently, she works at Bournemouth University, at the Centre for Film and Television, where she is Head of Department - Media. This is another link to the article: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/22186/. Does this help? Laurier (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, well as nobody seems interested in improving this, I have made the opening paragraph clearer, and reinstated the reference with more precise attribution. The article makes much more sense now to the reader. Cnbrb (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks very good! Laurier (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

..and thank you for your further edits. The intro makes much more sense now. Cnbrb (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The chart in History shows women as blue and men as orange/red.

The chart in History shows female as blue and male as orange/red. Since there is a well-known convention which uses blue for males, and pink/red/orange for females, that is mildly confusing, especially since the text stating blue is female (and ALL the text within the box) is super-small. I did a double-take, and had to peer closely. Perhaps the colors could be switched for the sake of clarity? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:F4BC:DB4B:710E:8E0B (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really an issue honestly, and it's not worth the effort. I don't think orange is a traditionally "feminine" color anyways, and trying to find a stereotypically fitting color for gender roles seems a little ironic given the article topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Have to agree with FenixFeather here. The irony isn't waster on my either. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hidden comment in External links

The following hidden text inserted in the section is moved here for visibility:

Ought to be a source for article content, rather than an external link:

• Little Boys Learn A Lot From Watching 'Star Wars,' And It Isn't All Good Colin Stokes heavily referenced the Bechdel test in his Tedx talk on female roles in film. – by User:Sandstein 20:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Limitations - "Baby Got Back" statement

Why is the statement about "Baby Got Back" necessary to keep if it no longer has a current reliable or valid source?

For example, the Sir Mix-a-Lot song "Baby Got Back" has been described as passing the Bechdel test, because it begins with a valley girl saying to another "oh my god, Becky, look at her butt".^[49]

Reference 49, the Lifehacker article that has been used here as a reference source for this statement, is not the original source of the statement. The Lifehacker article merely (and briefly) includes this linked and underlined sentence about the the song, "After all, “Baby Got Back” passes it." The Lifehacker article is not claiming this statement as it's own original content, but instead it is clearly linking to another source for this statement, an earlier TVtropes article. The problem is, that original source (TVtropes) has since removed that original statement about "Baby Got Back" from the original source article. The Lifehacker article no longer has a valid or reliable source for this statement. --Tengallonprophet (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)