From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I came across a possible flaw in neutrality with a personal observation that was made. "It is possible that this leads to women's needs not being properly represented." I am not clear whether this was an observation by the author of this page, or rather the author of said source. Either way, I believe this sentence should be reformatted or omitted to clear any confusion. Frontegasauce (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexism in politics[edit]

This is an important subject -- more than HALF of all people are women, and when prominent politicians [describe women as eye candy in national news, as if their visual appeal was their most important characteristic, overriding their value in the political sphere, it needs to stay in this article. The whole issue of shame is irrelevant; the comment was factual, highly notable, and relevant in the political sphere. Leaving it out is WP:POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Putting it in is a WP:BLP violation, and is a complete non starter. Even if it was well sourced, there are surely thousands of prominent people who are obviously sexists, or have said obviously sexist things on a public stage, and there is fundamentally no reason to pick one seemingly at random and put them up for public shaming on articles otherwise unrelated to them. Content about this particular person and their particular views belong on the article for which they are the subject. GMGtalk 10:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. BLP is for protecting innocent people from spurious claims to defame them. But in this instance, it is a prominent politician making remarks publicly in which the politician, himself, described his own comment as sexist, with the comment being well-referenced and notable in the national news media such as in CNN and the Washington Post and Newsweek. It belongs in the article. The argument that thousands of other people are making sexist comments in the news, therefore it is okay that we should not even mention any of them, is totally incorrect. Real sexism lies buried beneath the surface, in private discussions, in muffled tones, and only occasionally does it emerge from its normal goo, and when it does, the sexism needs to be exposed. Walker said it; said his comment was sexist; he belongs in this article on sexism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
the sexism needs to be exposed I completely agree. And you should absolutely do that on your blog, or in an opinion piece in your local newspaper. Those are appropriate place to work to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is not. GMGtalk 11:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You saying "I completely agree" -- nope, you disagree. You're trying to cover it up. And this is not just a subject for personal essays or blogs but it is a subject of national debate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not covered up at all. The proper place to cover it is on the main article for Mark Walker (North Carolina politician), which is where readers who are interested in this person should go to read about their political and social views. It may be topical now, but Wikipedia is not news, and is not beholden to the 24 hour news cycle. It may be relevant to North Carolina, or US politics, but Wikipedia is a global project. There is no substantive argument that a teenager from Bangalore interested in sexism needs to understand who this fairly mid level national politician is in order to have an encyclopedic understanding of sexism. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to prefer this particular person over Genghis Khan, Friedrich Nietzsche, or Napoléon Bonaparte, all of whom were probably among the most sexist notable people to have ever lived, and all of whom easily have more global lasting significance then this guy probably ever will. GMGtalk 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm the kind of feminist who will threaten physical violence when someone won't stop making misogynistic comments in front of me, and I still agree that this is a BLP vio. It's okay to mention those comments in the article on this politician, provided there's been enough coverage of it to establish due weight. But adding them here with a photo of him that's completely unrelated to those remarks is a pretty blatant attempt at public shaming. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • How about adding the information without the photo? There are plenty of reliable sources with the word sexism in the source's title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure... As soon as you can show that this particular incident of sexism is so much more prominent than every other incident of sexism that has ever occurred as to make it worthy of inclusion where they are not.
I'm not being sarcastic: If there is a ur-example of sexism out there, we can absolutely include that. But I strongly doubt that there is. Sexism is way too rampant and common for there to be such an incident. Hell, just last week I was reading about a serial killer who was torturing women to death because he believed women were evil, and that's not covered here. Do you know why? Because even that, as unbelievably despicable and outrageous as it is, is not uncommon.
Finally, accusing GMG of "trying to cover up" an incident of sexism is an extraordinarily bad faith thing to say, and I suggest you retract it. An admin who comes here (even a very liberal, female and feminist admin) would not look kindly upon those accusations, seeing as how they're not backed up by a single shred of evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Well maybe the term edit warring may be more applicable with this revert following this revert without a consensus achieved here on this talk page. And removing examples of sexism in politics which are well-referenced and notable on the dubious grounds that it has to pass some test for being a super-sexist comment, is borderline ridiculous.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You can call it borderline ridiculous all you want, but I'll tell you this for free: your edit could get you blocked from editing for BLP violations. My argument in response would never get me so much as warned. I'll tell you one more thing: This article is certainly not list of incidences of sexual harassment in US politics. This article exists to document sexism as a phenomenon, not particular instances of it.
Oh what the hell, I'll tell you one final thing: Multiple reverts to remove BLP violations are explicitly exempted from our rules against edit warring. So you calling it edit warring isn't any better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
More nonsense with your spurious "BLP violations" claim. Read the BLP regarding public figures. It says "In the case of public figures ... BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Who said the sexist comment? Mark Walker did. How did he describe his own comment? As a sexist remark. Multiple media sources agree that it was a sexist comment. It belongs in the article on sexism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I really don't know how I can stress this more, but this guy isn't special. Get over it. There are sexists in every flavor, and at every station. GMGtalk 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Methinks the politician did an excellent job of shaming himself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
If you're trying to convince me that you have an immutable POV and you can't listen to reasonable criticisms, you're doing a damn fine job, I have to say. Read what the community is telling you at BLPN; it's the same thing GMG and I have told you here. "When one man calls you a dog, ignore him. But when a second a third man call you a dog, best check for fleas." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The definition of becoming sexist[edit]

It is extremely troubling to me, that the definition of sexism, is becoming explicitly sexist.

It's not just here that I am seeing this happen, but I'd like to start a discussion about removing sexism, from the description of what sexism is. brill (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Brillpappin (brill), check the archives of this talk page for past discussions about this. It has been discussed extensively. Also look at the sources. Sexism is primarily directed at girls and women; the literature is clear about this (and what has been called "The Harvey Weinstein effect" has recently brought it to the media forefront, although that effect is more so about sexual harassment). And it's not sexist to state so. That sexism is primarily directed at girls and women is not even included in the first sentence of the Sexism article; it's included in the second sentence. And, per WP:LEAD, it should be in the lead. It's not something we are going to exclude from the lead, especially when the article is overwhelmingly about girls and women because the literature on sexism is overwhelmingly about girls and women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)