Talk:Stop Bild Sexism

Blacklisted Links Found on Stop Bild Sexism

Cyberbot II has detected links on Stop Bild Sexism which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://www.change.org/p/zeigt-allen-respekt-schafft-das-bild-girl-ab-bildsexism-bild-de

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Stop Bild Sexism

Cyberbot II has detected links on Stop Bild Sexism which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://www.change.org/p/zeigt-allen-respekt-schafft-das-bild-girl-ab-bildsexism-bild-de

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

Sammy, I see what you're trying to do here, but I think "what its organizers describe as the objectification of women" goes too far. I don't know whether you've seen the newspaper, but it couldn't be worse. If anything objectifies women, it's that newspaper. Sarah ^(talk) 22:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the newspaper, but it seems like a harsh claim to make in WP's voice, especially without a neutral source backing it up. Not everybody accepts that pornography objectifies women, and I'm sure the newspaper's editors would want to dispute such an assertion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a harsh claim and a harsh truth. I'd be surprised if the editors were to dispute it in private, because it's obviously true and they're not doing it by accident.

It's worse than pornography because it's in a supposed newspaper, and it goes far beyond the "BILD-girl," which is bad enough. It's the routine undermining of women in every way. The example of the cleavages of well-known women on the front page, where readers are asked to rate them, is typical. Imagine how women feel in offices when they go for their coffee break, and their male colleagues are sitting around reading that newspaper (which I have witnessed). Sarah ^(talk) 22:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but by my reading of the sources the editors do publicly contest that they are sexists, and in the absence of a RS saying otherwise, we probably shouldn't be making that assertion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bild is notoriously sexist. See Love it or Loathe it: Audience Responses to Tabloids in the UK and Germany (2014), p. 81. Also see The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum, which is about the newspaper's response to terrorism, but the sexism toward the main character is a large part of it. Sarah ^(talk) 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about sexism in the first source - maybe you mistakenly cited the wrong page? Although there is a ton of criticism of the paper's biases and editorial practices - I think the criticism section of Bild could be expanded significantly from its current bulleted version, and this article on the Stop Bild Sexism campaign could fit in as a subsection without any cuts. (Assuming it fails the AfD, which seems likely.) Adding a bit more detail on the campaign's specific concerns could be a good substitute for stating objectively that the paper promotes sexism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(ce) Search for "its emphasis on tradition gender roles and sexist (re)presentation of women." Sarah ^(talk) 00:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I skimmed over that the first time. Included in this article now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I understand the natural inclination and good editing practice when an article is nominated for deletion of adding additional refs to prove notability. However, adding non-RS refs does not help the cause and only adds additional problems for other editors. It is particularly awkward to add refs and material that don't talk about the organization whatsoever. Unhelpful at this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've restored the material because you removed several RS. Can you say what the issue is with each one? Sarah ^(talk) 21:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Here goes.

1. Zod culture is a user/reader generated website. No editorial control, no evidence of a reputation for fact checking. Not RS.

2. The google books ref and material was comment on Bild generally and does not mention the organization at all. It might be a fine addition at another article, perhaps the Bild article, not at this one.

3. andersundgleich-nrw.de Is not a RS. It is an advocacy site apparently hosting the petition or attempting to bolster the petition that this org is promoting. It has no editorial control, staff, reputation for fact checking, etc. It is not RS. This particular page at the site might (stress might) be a SPS for the org, but that is unclear at the site.

Given this it seems improper to leave these as refences at this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect these proposed article/refs are being generated by google searches on Bild sexism generally as opposed to "Stop Bild Sexism", the organization. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The first and third are valid primary sources. (See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.) The second is used to provide context - policy asks for a majority of sources be about the article topic, not all of them. Using sources about a different topic to back up statements in an article or to provide context is standard practice, and we really wouldn't be able to write much without that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

They are not Primary, nor are they valid. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

RE the first: We have no way to tell with non-reliable user-generated sites if the material is correct or even properly attributed. If it is written by someone affiliated with the org (not verifiable) it would still be problematic as a WP:SPS self-published source. RE the third. It isn't RS and probably isn't even WP:SPS. Sorry. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the person you should apologize to. But let me get this straight - you are concerned that someone may have surreptitiously gone to zod.com, falsely claimed to be the social media manager of Schluss mit dem Bild-Sexismus, and posted a long, passionate, literate essay on the movement's values and mission, while in actuality not being associated with it? --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing about non RS sites is...They are not reliable. There are many blogs and site that have cogent, well written material which are not reliable under Wikipedia's standards. If we want to use their own material (appropriately) we should use the org's own site. Using a non-RS as if it were the proper primary source is crazy. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Capitalismojo,

• re: 1. As Sammy says, the author of the Zod article is the campaign's social-media manager, and the article is well-written, so this is a good primary source;
• re: 2. the book by Mascha K. Brichta is used as a secondary source for background on Bild's reputation for sexism;
• re: 3. andersundgleich could be used to support information about who supports the petition, though I would probably look for something else to do that.

Sarah ^(talk) 01:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Re 1. Zod is user generated, thus not reliable, and so by definition is not a good source. If we need primary source material we should look to their own site and press statements. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Re 3. It isn't reliable for anything that I can identify. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Capitalmosjo, please don't keep removing sources, particularly as you're the AfD nominator. The Zod article is a primary source. I don't know whether Zod is user generated (do you have a link for that?), but if it is, it makes the article a self-published primary source. It is a very good article, and self-published primary sources used to discuss themselves are allowed, particularly when the article is a high-quality one; see WP:SPS. Use common sense: who is better placed to describe the campaign than one of its managers? The only thing policy requires is that we not base an article entirely or mostly on such sources.

  As for the Women's Council, it makes no difference whether it's an advocacy group. If you have a policy-based reason for removing it, please cite it. Sarah ^(talk) 17:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy suggests that many advocacy sources can be problematic. Per WP:RS WP:Questionable sources

"Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. ... 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 which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

In this case we have a foreign NGO/advocacy organization with a POV (which can be fine), no apparent editorial oversight, no known reputation for fact checking, an explicit purpose of promotion. So I find this not to be a reliable source and suggest that most would agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You're citing a guideline, rather than policy. The policy is V, and specifically WP:QS (which as I recall I wrote). That section is concerned with extremist sources, not anything that could be described as promotional. But even if we accept your interpretation, we can still use the Women's Council as a source for itself, so we should simply add that they support the campaign. I don't know what you mean by calling it "foreign". It's a German group writing about a German newspaper.

The main point, though, is that you ought not to be removing sources or material, given that you nominated the article for AfD. Sarah ^(talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, are you arguing that we couldn't use the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as a source on issues after affect African Americans, because it's an advocacy group? Sarah ^(talk) 17:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I am not so arguing. I would suggest that, as with all sources, they may or may not be reliable for content. Advocacy orgs are WP:questionable. It is my belief that the NAACP, as as venerated, large, and historical organization with a robust and professional staff (including many prominent attorneys) is probably reliable for most everything. Some advocacy organizations do not have that reputation. Many advocacy orgs put forth poorly researched material (often by volunteers) in order to spur debate and controversy or to promote the organization or cause. This is why WP:RS suggests relying on academic and news sources. Each source must be carefully looked at. Extremism isn't the only problem with advocacy, it's verifying the accuracy. That is difficult when an advocacy org's purpose is to promote not report, to achieve a social or political goal not to convey facts. Those are my concerns, expressed poorly perhaps, but deeply held. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIASED (part of WP:RS, "identifying reliable sources"): Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

...and if it is unreliable (Sarah asked if you had a link that shows it is self-published, did you find one?) - WP:ABOUTSELF (part of WP:VERIFY: "sources that are usually not reliable"): Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as... etc.

The article is about the campaign against sexism in Bild, Stop Bild Sexism. The piece in Zod is about the campaign. Also you quoted a guideline (not a policy) which states: 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 which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. You have since mentioned extremism again, do you anything which supports the assertion that "Zod culture" has a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight, or that they are expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, for example, acknowledged as extremist by UK government, US government or similar ?. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)