User talk:Francescoh

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further vandalism, as you did at Bechdel test. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 18:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why my edit has been reverted and I am prevented from changing the biased inaccuracy of the page. The changes proposed are fair and accurate. Your request to block me is unjustified. Francescoh (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you changed the title of a reference from "The Bechdel Test Is And Always Has Been Queer" into "The Bechdel Test Is And Always Has Been A Queer Joke", which is not the source's actual title. This is vandalism and will result in increasing blocks or other sanctions if repeated. Sandstein 19:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't realize that was a title that couldn't be changed. But every other edits should be applicable. Francescoh (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Bechdel test, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. In this instance, you attempted to counter statements in the article about the financial success of Bechdel test-passing movies with a source about financial failures of specific female-led films, but these are not the same thing, and linking them is priginal research. Sandstein 18:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand why my source would be less reliable than any other cited in the article? I can see that many of those are magazines or feminist organizations which are clearly biased on the topic. The source I mentioned is a reputable magazine read by millions of women across America. Also, those female-led titles are just a few examples of a larger phenomenon for which there is plenty of evidence in the box office performance publicly available for everyone to see. The specific sources previously proposed in the article are outdated, incorrect and biased. My attempt is to bring balance to the information presented on the topic. Francescoh (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your addition was not that the "Evie" source you added was not reliable. The problem was that this source has nothing to do with the topic of the Wikipedia article you added it to, which is the Bechdel test. The article reports that studies have found that there is a correlation between Bechdel test results and financial success. The "Evie" source does not even mention the Bechdel test, but makes the argument that "female-led remakes" have flopped because they are bad films. But our Wikipedia article is not about female-led remakes, but rather about the degree to which films have speaking roles for women (whether or not they are in the leading role and whether or not the films are remakes). Accordingly, the "Evie" source has no bearing at all on the topic of the article, and adding it to the article in an attempt to "disprove" the studies cited in the article is improper original research. Sandstein 06:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provided is relevant to the topic, since the Wiki article suggests that movies with more female characters are supposed to be financially more successful, which is not true. My addition counter the argument with evidence that that is not the case.

If Wikipedia is apolitical and non partisan, it should allow for different sources to be added to controversial topics. Francescoh (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article does not suggest that "movies with more female characters are supposed to be financially more successful". It cites sources that find a correlation between the Bechdel test and financial success. The Bechdel test measures whether two women talk about something other than a man. It has nothing to do with how many women there are in a film. Besides, the source you cite does not make any attempt to quantitatively analyze the financial success of the films it discusses. It merely asserts that these specific films failed because they are badly made. Even if one were to agree with this argument, it has nothing to do whether films in general do better if they meet the Bechdel test, and therefore cannot be used to "rebut" studies saying that this is so. The source is therefore simply outside the scope of the article. Sandstein 11:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: [...leading them to conclude that a way for Hollywood to make more money might be to "put more women onscreen."]

This conclusion clearly correlates the presence of "more women on screen" to financial success, which is not true. The evidence currently provided in the article is outdated and biased.

The Evie Magazine article presents facts, introducing more up to date relevant evidence of failure at the box office by prominent franchises that feature "more women on screen", which counters the argument stated in the article mentioned above.

The way the topic is presented is not truthful to current factual statistics, nor fully expanded including all the evidence available to the contrary of what is currently stated, therefore your conclusion is not justified. Francescoh (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at, but you're still going about it wrong.

To begin with, if you want to address content in the section Bechdel test#Financial aspects, you'd need to add any new content there, not in the lead section. The lead section is a summary of the article, not a place for ideas not already present in the rest of the article.

Substantially, you're still comparing apples to oranges. While Vocativ do argue that "put[ting] more women onscreen" would be a financial benefit, they do so after a quantitative analysis of financial data and Bechdel test data (which is why they are quoted in this article about the Bechdel test). The "Evie" author, on the other hand, does not address the Bechdel test, which means that her views might be appropriate in an article about the broader topic of gender and film, but not in this article. But more importantly, she does not attempt any quantitative analysis or pursue any other scholarly approach. She merely states her opinion about why "female reboots" (not even all films with women) are bad. This is basically an op-ed, which we do not use as a source (WP:RSEDITORIAL). It's also just not on the same level of seriousness and rigor as the quantitative studies cited in the article.

Moreover, looking closer at the "Evie" source, I don't think it is a reliable source at all. Per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." This seems to apply here. There is nothing on their website about any sort of professional structure or editorial oversight; for all we know, this might be one person writing the website in their basement. Moreover, their self-description ("offers a more truthful perspective than the biased agenda of other publications") indicates that the publication pursues a ideological agenda, which makes it even more problematic as a source.

Generally, I advise you against editing Wikipedia articles simply to "correct" opinions that you disagree with. Instead, look for high-quality sources and try to synthesize what they say, instead of attempting to make the article fit your own views. That's what our principle of neutrality (WP:NPOV) is about. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on stressing the lack of reputable sources. That doesn't justify the bias in the article and contradicts the very principle of neutrality. Believe it or not Evie Magazine is a reputable magazine. Just because it doesn't fit the narrative of feminist organizations doesn't make it any less reputable. Regardless, It is not a question of my personal opinion. It is widely proven by factual box office results that strict benchmarks such as the Bechdel test contribute to the success of movies and tv shows, on the contrary, it is detrimental to quality entertainment. It's the wishful thinking of radical feminists that want to impose such rules to their personal gain, based on something that admittedly started as a joke. You can verify that yourself from different sources. There are many reporting on such facts. Even if it was just for the sake of argument, these facts should be included. If you don't want to include such facts in the article the only logical conclusion is that you want to keep the narrative in favor of the point made in the article. I am disappointed to find that Wikipedia is not a neutral source of knowledge after all. Francescoh (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errata corrige :

It is widely proven by factual box office results that strict benchmarks such as the Bechdel test DO NOT contribute to the success of movies and tv shows Francescoh (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. Be advised that what you are attempting to do is tendentious editing - attempting to fit Wikipedia to your own worldview rather than to what reliable sources say - and if you continue with it you will be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 05:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried too. Do not even try to accuse me of forcing information to fit my views. Be aware that you are refusing to accept factual data making excuses to perpetuate an extremist political narrative. In that case Wikipedia will be considered biased, not neutral and not reliable. The reputation of your website is at stake. I rest my case. Francescoh (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sandstein 19:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]