Talk:Women in positions of power

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women in positions of power article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History C‑class Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Feminism C‑class

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Gender studies C‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlir93, Shannonbyouk, HealyMarroy, Jtrah34 (article contribs).

"Women in academia" and "Examples of success" sections

The sentence in the “women in Academia” sections that says, “While hiring of women in academic fields has been on a slight rise...” assumes a certain time period. Since the cited article was published in 1986, I would suggest clarifying the time period that women in academic fields has been on slight rise, or finding a more recent resource. Also, the sentence “people today don't understand the reasoning behind the fact that men generally get the top positions in the business world,” might be problematic for the encyclopedia format. Depending on when and where you are reading article, “people today” has many interpretations. I think the section would be fine if it just delved in the Pew Research Center study and the introductory sentence were deleted altogether. The final sentence in the “examples of success” section discusses “sexism norms that are still rooted in our society today”; perhaps better wording would be “gender norms that have perpetuated into the 20th century.” Thoughts? Somehuman (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Somehuman[reply]

This article is not noteworthy. Why does it exist? It shows bias with emotional wording and imaginary bald assertions:--

 "In the workplace, both in the public and private sector, the opportunities available to women are trumped by a glass ceiling"