Talk:Women's rights in 2014/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

General note for future eds

We are proud to announce that this article was created due to discussions at WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Hi OrangesRyellow, I've made this invisible for now, and I'm wondering if we should remove it:

In October in Bangladesh, Motiur Rahman Nizami, chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was sentenced to death for rape and other war crimes committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, in which Pakistani soldiers and collaborators raped 200,000 women, according to one estimate.

I haven't found a source linking this to women's rights, and I can't find where the 200,000 figure comes from. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. What do you think?

Also, I'm about to nominate this for DYK in both our names, if that's okay with you, unless you'd prefer do it. I don't mind either way. I'm not a fan of DYK, but I think this would be a good one to nominate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin The 200,000 figure is from the HuffPost source, but that is not a major issue. I think you are right in pointing out that the sources I used do not connect this to women's rights. I had included this because it looked like a big victory for women's rights that people guilty of mass rapes, and living with impunity and social status were being brought to justice, --by a woman-- ( for those who know ). Besides the two big shots I had noted in the article, some other collaborators have also been given death sentences this year, and proceedings are continuing against some others. But since I don't have a proper source connecting this to women's rights, I think I will delete it. Please always feel free to let me know if there are any other concerns.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can sort of see that it fits, but I think we would need a source stressing the women's rights angle just a bit, rather than the general murder and other war crimes. The HuffPost didn't say where the 200,000 figure came from, so I felt a bit uneasy. If there's time we could look for an academic source that gives the background, but for now I'm inclined to remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Bias

This article is way too biassed towards "achievements"/"recognition". Alter, for one, is adamant that much was not done/remains to be done and that the achievements are patchy, eg:

That doesn’t mean things were great for all American women in 2014. Actually, a lot of things really sucked. But “not great, and never been better” is the rallying cry of a movement in progress.

I'd be interested to know, for example, the extent to which the demagoguery of Narendra Modi has actually caused change in India. The rape proposals actually became law a year earlier, at least according to Capital punishment in India, so I'm a bit bemused by the timing of both Modi's soundbite and Yadav's criticism of proposals that I've just added. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Who was the UK Liberal Party peer who was (effectively) let off the hook by the party regarding allegations of harassment, leading to some well-reported comments about sexism/cover-ups etc from his alleged victims? I can see his face but can't for the life of me remember his name. That, though, might be an example of the other side of the coin. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Operation Yewtree thing is true enough, of course, but only half the story, and perhaps not even that much. Other prominent accused were found not guilty, eg: William Roache, and other prominent people were charged with assault against boys. This is the problem when an article is compiled based on a POV: stuff is being coatracked as a positive for women's rights when in fact it is simply a small number out of many court cases. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You will also find a lot of stuff like this in the UK media. I can't find it right now but there was massive criticism following the benefits changes announced later in the year (the "Autumn Statement") that put some sort of freeze on tax credits. This is the same government whose leader praised the elevation of the Rev Libby to a bishopric as being a "historic" advance. All in the garden is not rosy. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The mattress-carrying thing might well be mostly US-centric. I can't recall seeing stories about an equivalent demonstration in the UK mainstream national media and the source only seems to mention one UK university, whereas the phrasing is ambiguous enough that it might imply quite a few. Didn't the originator get charged/fine/whatever by Columbia? Is that relevant? Dare I ask what the men's rights activists thought of all these sort of things? - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to carpet-bomb a talk page with scores of issues an hour, you cannot expect to get meaningful responses. Most people cannot engage in endless hairsplitting all day ( + night ), day after day ( + night after night ). That you bring them all up in one section is only another reason that it is impossible to engage in a meaningful manner. The way you are going, it is impossible to engage.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:TPG. My points all relate to the same thing, ie: coatracking. I'm loathe to mess around too much with the article itself, only in part because much of my experience is UK-centric. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand which part of WP:TPG relates to coatracking, or why you gave that link. I still see no way of engaging meaningfully with so many issues rolled into one, without engaging with the individual issues themselves..OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You accused me of carpet-bombing/tendentious hair-splitting etc and there was no need for it, but hey, I'm over it. They are all the same basic point but feel free to number them and refer to them that way if you want. Doubtless, I could come up with more examples of why this seems to be one of the more skewed articles I've seen recently. It is basically a list hooked to a few op-eds, sometimes published by organisations that I for one have never heard of. Maybe I'm just pig-ignorant about this subject etc but I doubt it. The tone is set by the lead, and it is wrong: we are not even reflecting properly what people like Solnit have said (see section below for an example). And that is one reason why quotations in lead sections are rarely A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Prostitution laws

This source confuses me. It opens by saying that men could be liable for purchasing sexual services and then spends much of the rest of its text seemingly discussing what appears to be the newly-illegal act of pimping (called "living off immoral earnings" in UK law, I think). Is the law specifically against men procuring services from women, or is it "genderless"? Furthermore, if people cannot buy then people cannot sell because, in theory, there will be no market. Presumably that is a part of the reason why some sex workers have objected to it ... but we don't even mention the objections. Are there any sources out there that clarify things?

And what is the context of the French Senate decision? Why did they reject a similar piece of legislation? - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevence of the quote

"as many restrictions on the sons as have been imposed on our daughters. - Modi, I don't see how this is pro-women's rights, it seems more to be anti-men's rights as it claims that he wants more restrictions on women, not less on men, at least I can't find anything in this context to make it relevant.

Also while I'm writing here, why doesn't Wikipedia have pages like this for men, I don't get why Wikipedia treats men as the default, there are articles for women in India, women in [job], but not separate articles for men in the same situations, gender rôles don't just affect women, either way most of this information seems very one sided, anyhow this is unrelated, I would like an answer on the relevance of the Modi quote though. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What the quote means is that families should try to prevent their boys from becoming rapists. His quote is not anti-men's rights unless raping be considered a men's right. The importance of preventing rapes in relation to women's rights is self evident, unless you fail to see how rape is a violation of women's rights. As for why wikipedia does/does-not have which articles, maybe try creating the articles you are interested in, or put up your questions at Wikipedia:Help desk. I am unable to answer why wikipedia does not have articles of the type you suggest because, I am not responsible for that situation, and I never opposed creation of any articles of the type you suggest. It may be that those articles do not exist simply because nobody created them. I think it would be good to have articles of that type, and I have no objection if someone wants to create them. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead photo

I'd prefer the Malala photo in the lead rather than Michele. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with either. I've also asked the UN for a release for this image, which would be another possibility. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel quite strongly about my position. Perhaps history will see 2014 as a watershed year, I hope so, but how far from our goal we still are... I'd guess that we'd all agree that education and the right to be in control of our own bodies would be two of the biggest factors that must be met if we are to find equality. Michelle seems to be playing it pretty safe as "a fashion icon and role model for women, and an advocate for poverty awareness, nutrition, and healthy eating." Even Hillary went far beyond that when she didn't yet realize that she was expected to stay home and bake cookies. Slim, your link won't work for me. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, by all means swap the position of those images if you'd like Malala at the top. The Flickr one is quite a nice image of UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka and Emma Watson at the HeForShe event. But I don't know whether the UN will release it, or if they do how long it will take. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Slim - I'd rather wait to see if there is more feedback. Great job on the article! Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also prefer the Malala Yousafzai photo in the lead. As the youngest ever Nobel Prize laureate, which was awarded for her women's rights advocacy, I think she's particularly relevant.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Me, too. She was active, whereas Obama was more reactive. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will change it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, your new layout looks good, thanks. I heard back from the UN about the image of Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka and Emma Watson, but they will only release it under a non-commercial licence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Prostitution ¿shouldn't that be considered a women's right?

In my country (the Netherlands) we've had many Feminists call out for legalized prostitution in the past (successfully), this article paints legal prostitution as anti-female, while one can just as easily argue that women should have the freedom to do with their bodies as they please ("my body, my choice"), and I don't see how these laws are women's rights as they restrict men from purchasing, nothing else, it doesn't make sex workers illegal, just their (mostly male) costumers, it doesn't seem like a pro-woman law, merely an anti-man law, I highly doubt that it should be mentioned in this article. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The section on prostitution which is currently in article reports that prostitution was decriminalized for those selling sex (usually women) and remains criminal for those buying sex (usually male) in Canada. This decriminalization for women selling sex occurred in 2014, so it certainly seems applicable to Women's Rights in 2014. Did something significant regarding prostitution and women's rights occur in 2014 in the Netherlands? Ongoing year to year objection to prostitution laws, which is not specific to 2014, would be out of scope for this particular article. Also, I can see the argument that continued criminalization of buying sex (when they buyers are often male) could be anti men's rights, but that would seem better discussed in an article on men's rights and is seems off topic for this article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the IP's point is whether something happened in 2014 or not but rather whether it relates to women's rights. Of course, it does but it could be seen as a restrictive measure rather than an emancipating one - see my comment in Talk:Women's_rights_in_2014#Prostitution_laws above. This article is a bit of a POV mess, I'm, afraid. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There's broader context missing in this part of the article that concerns me. The Canadian laws came into effect after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down parts of the Criminal Code relating to prostitution in 2013.[1] The new law makes prostitution illegal where it had previously been legal.[2] Opinion is and has been divided as to whether this Swedish model (the one the lawmakers chose for these new laws) even works.[3][4] Now some groups are encouraging the provinces to not enforce the law, which is within their right[5] (and other jurisdictions have already not been enforcing the existing laws related to prostitution[6]) It seems like the fact thar this new law exists was cherry-picked to make a particular statement and the broader context may not support that statement which is pov pushing and WP:OR. I applaud your efforts but right now this part of the article reads as a bunch of WP:SYNTH to me and I'm concerned that the rest of the article has the same problem. Ca2james (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting regarding the Canadian law making aspects of prostitution illegal where it was previously legal. I could see how those who viewed prostitution as a women's right (to do with her body as she pleases) would see this as a set back in terms of rights not a positive. Regarding your concerns about WP:SYNTH, I believe if the sources specifically address the law as promoting women's rights, that would not be an issue. I didn't add any of the relevant text or sources but looking them over shows the refs currently used do treat these laws as promoting women's rights with quotes such as, "Women's rights campaigners say the reforms coming into force on Saturday will help protect women working in prostitution and tackle sex trafficking" [7]. Regarding the French law, the article says, "A former prostitute who walked 800 kilometres (500 miles) across France to demand that the government make good on its promise to penalise clients ended her protest march in Paris Sunday....Pascale Boistard, minister for women's rights, also joined Hicher on the last stretch of her march." [8], so these articles are actually characterizing this as promoting women's rights. If RS can be found which characterize these laws as a negative for women's rights, that would also be relevant. Regarding the second source, this potential negative was addressed, "critics fear the legislation will simply push prostitution further underground and make the women who earn their living from it more vulnerable to abuse." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The section seems fine to me; the point is to give an overview of these issues, not to get into detail, but I've added that some groups oppose the new law to satisfy Ca2james's concerns. Pinging Iselilja, the author of that section, to make sure she's okay with the changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

ce I have added some other law changes in 2014, so hope that's OK (while I remembered the prostitution law, I

I am absolutely fine with the changes and I would also be fine with other editors adding more context or changes the framing somewhat (just it doesn't get to long). It's a complex issue where you may have women/feminists on both sides and the perspective on this may also vary from country to country. But where the Swedish model is introduced or proposed, women's rights advocates are in the forefront of it. I have now changed the disposition of the article a bit since I have introduced some new laws (while I remembered the French prostitution proposal I had quite missed the major gender equality law there); hope that's OK, or just make new changes. Iselilja (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Iselilja, thanks for adding that new section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I'm still quite concerned that the whole article is WP:OR. Aside from the lede, the article appears to be an editor-chosen list of events that occurred instead of an article summarizing list of events put together by reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, although with less cheerleading it could probably be neutrally OR. I see that some changes have been made and will delve deeper later, once I've got another thorny article out of the way. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Increasing numbers of women on social media"

I can't see support for "Increasing numbers of women on social media spoke out about their experiences of violence and sexual abuse" in either of the cited sources. They say a lot of people spoke out in the specific Twitter campaign (and Solnit notes that there is some irony there, given that she believes Twitter to have been a preferred medium for delivering threats against outspoken women). I doubt anyone keeps count of how many people speak out in general, from one year to the next, nor whether even those who retweeted etc actually spoke out about their experiences rather than, erm, just retweeting someone else's. The sentence I quote seems all to be pretty fuzzy and anecdotal, although no-one denies #YesAllWomen was a big trending thing for a few days.

Solnit's note (same source) about "A woman is still beaten every nine seconds in this country, but thanks to the heroic feminist campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, she now has access to legal remedies that occasionally work, occasionally protect her, and—even more occasionally—send her abuser to jail" is also rather downbeat but not reflected in our article. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I had waited long enough for a response and thus removed the specific sentence here. Smallbones then put a slightly rephrased version back in. Since Smallbones clearly hasn't read this section (they say below that they have no idea what the issues are), perhaps now they will. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

""Many women spoke out on social media about their experiences of violence and sexual abuse" might work, although I'm not even sure that it was "many" rather than "some". Certainly, there was a lot of retweeting, a lot of "yay, well said" etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of possible WP:OR violations.

I have removed the event that happened in September, where a partial ban on abortion was almost enacted, as the article in question used as a source did not frame the issue as a women's rights issue. Therefore, I'll say that the inclusion of that event was possible WP:OR, as it drew a Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have restored it. IMO you are using the WP:OR guideline incorrectly. Let's see what others have to say. Gandydancer (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The original research was "In September, Spain's Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced that the government would abandon a law proposal to strengthen the abortion law in Spain which would have banned all abortions except where the mother's health was in danger or she had been raped. The proposal which was introduced by the People Party's cabinet in December 2013 had been met with large protests through 2014.[9]" Asking whether a source could be found to link the issue to this article would be one thing, but posting "Removal of possible WP:OR violations" indicates a complete lack of understanding of the topic. One clue is that the first link in the ref points here where women hold a banner saying "Nosotras Decidimos, Aborto Libre, Movimiento Feminista de Madrid". Another lies in the nature of "Decidir Nos Hace Libres" mentioned in the ref and here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I don't know Spanish. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Abortion seems self-evidently to be a women's rights issue, albeit one that (like most others) causes women to fall into two opposing camps. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Still a violation of WP:V. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Chess, why are you treating this as an ongoing concern? Apparently someone already added another ref to that section which explicitly links the issue to women's rights [10] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: Sorry, didn't see the new ref. Now it is clear. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of detail added to the alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz, and other reversions.

User:SlimVirgin removed the context I've added to the article, in the case of Emma Sulkowicz, without explaining why. I would like to know why the detail was removed, specifically the detail that the accused was found "not responsible" after an investigation, as that helpfully describes what specifically she alleged as "mishandling", in that she did not get the desired result from her claim. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I have reverted your removal of the content in question, as you did not explain your rationale. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. This comes after Slim's removal of the explanation for Utah's inability/unwillingness to search people for guns. I did raise that above but got no response. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: If I'm in an editing conflict with somebody, and they don't discuss, I redo the edit (leaving a message on the talk page), and when we get to 3RR, my edit is the one that is kept. Usually, this forces them to discus. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not me. I'm treading on eggshells here. I'll escalate it to another forum if I have to. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I see you've removed my attribution to The Guardian, criticizing it as "misleading". Please explain why it is misleading? I see that The Guardian described the year as a watershed year. Shouldn't we attribute that? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Julien Blanc

Mentioning the UK in "Australia, the UK and Singapore barred US-based dating coach Julien Blanc after complaints that his aggressive techniques amounted to abuse of women" might be troublesome. As the source says, the UK authorities do not comment on individual cases and while it is true that there was a petition opposing his entry (it didn't get that many signatories - 15k is pretty trivial), linking cause and effect as we do might be unfair. We'll not know for sure for another 30 years, I guess, and perhaps not even then if it is redacted. It seems to be a pretty obvious connection but can we make it, bearing in mind WP:BLP? - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably take this to WP:BLPN unless someone wants to comment here. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yewtree

I mentioned this in the Bias section above but comments elsewhere suggest that the section will be ignored, so let's try this as a single issue: The Operation Yewtree thing is true enough, of course, but only half the story, and perhaps not even that much. Other prominent accused were found not guilty, eg: William Roache, and other prominent people were charged with assault against boys.

Sexual assault etc is, obviously, a problem. It has gone on since the dawn of time and I doubt anyone would dispute that women have borne the brunt of it. But it is not only women who are affected and our concentration on the successful Yewtree aspects - which is an entirely criminal matter - loads the "message". I'm not even sure whether all Yewtree cases have been successful (I seem to recall that charges were dropped) but, more importantly, the UK criminal law regarding assault etc is not, as far as I am aware, framed as a matter of women's rights but rather as rights of the individual, regardless of gender. People of both sexes are tried and found innocent or guilty based on the law, not on some broader "women's rights" hook. Emphasising the Yewtree cases as we do seems seriously to skew the reality, although I'm unsure how we could add a "... but Roache etc were found not guilty" type of sentence without running the risk of a BLP-violation by implication. I'm very uneasy about this and t might be better to drop the entire statement. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't understand objections to article

It seems there are several objections to the article based on the idea that a particular topic is not "relevant." Or perhaps it is the idea that "Women's rights in 2014" is not a well defined concept, or that the concept needs to be defined by somebody in the history department of a university.

Really?

Relevance, I suppose, ultimately comes down to a matter of consensus. I mean there are some folks who don't believe that a mouse trap is relevant to the concept of "mouse." No way to argue with that.

"Women's rights in 2014" is nevertheless a well defined concept, and it has been defined or at least well described by the Guardian, TIME, etc. The concept does not need to be defined by any particular academic discipline.

So let's please agree that the article is here to stay and not try to undermine it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about anyone else but my objections do not fall into any of those categories. Interesting, though, that you refer to the various op-eds in Time, The Guardian, Outlook etc. They are the hook on which the article was mooted and indeed upon which it is based. And most of them ultimately boil down to the opinion of a couple of people, most notably Solnit. That is a tenuous position from which to argue an article's existence, although I don't think anyone has actually suggested that the thing should be deleted.

No-one seems to be paying much attention to my actual objections as noted in sections above but I am increasingly aware that this is probably because there are some backroom shenanigans going on, whereby various people have decided that I will go away if they collectively ignore me. So let's be clear: I won't go away, and not responding is not a good tactic for obtaining consensus. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that you don't want to delete the article. But I guess it comes down to that I just don't understand what you want to be done. When you have a specific suggestion, could you just suggest some specific text that you want to insert, or re-write a section and show us the proposed text here. Otherwise, it seems that I can't figure out what you want to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the sections above. I critiqued quite a bit and I provided some counterpoint examples. I'm loathe to edit thing too much because quite a few of those active in GGTF will be just waiting for a chance to run me to ANI or AE. Gandydancer sort of referenced the issue vis-a-vis this article and its GGTF origins here, and I am far more exposed than they are.

Any experienced contributor, and especially those with GAs, FAs and suchlike major work under their belts, should be able to see what many of the problems are, which is why I am a bit surprised that some seem unwilling to acknowledge it. It needs a complete rewrite to give far more balance, far more "proper" sources, far less op-eds and far less cheerleading. I've never seen a lead as bad as this one except in circumstances where newbies wrote the thing or it was a single-sentence section. I also think it would be best to have complementary articles for 2013 etc, so that this thing stands out as less of a polemic than at present. Failing redemption through such actions, yes, the thing should probably be deleted on the grounds of synthesis, recentism, pov and umpteen other charges.

I've just done a big rewrite of David Ross (businessman) after that appeared in an ANI report. Hopefully, if I refer this article up the chain then someone will spot it and do the same here. Unless people come to their senses first, of course, and I'm rather hoping that they will.

One item in the sections above directly relates to something that I just removed, after waiting some days, and you then reverted. Discuss. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It does look to me like you are trying to disrupt things here, in line with previous:

"Sitush (general disruption) "7A) Sitush (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) has been disruptive in areas relating to the Gender gap task force.[50][51][52][53] (including edit summary), displaying battleground attitudes. Passed 7 to 0 at 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)"

As far as your straight removal of the material: "Increasing numbers of women on social media spoke out about their experiences of violence and sexual abuse."

You have a very over-literal interpretation of this sentence - that the 3 sources cited claim to have statistical data saying that more women did it this year than last. Very few writers in the usual sources that we consider to be reliable sources actually claim to have statistical data behind such claims, but you are requiring it here. Why?

After your removal of the sentence, I rewrote it as "Many women began speaking out in creative ways on social media about their experiences of violence and sexual abuse."

Now that is an excellent summary of what all 3 sources say. There is no claim here, implied or otherwise, that they have data from the previous years. You removed the rewritten sentence. Why?

I'm putting the rewritten sentence back. If you have an actual suggested change, please put the suggestion on this page and we can discuss it.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. See the section above, where I explained my revert. You can treat the original creation as being bold, my revert as just that. You should be discussing, not fiddling with it. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Comment on the content, not the contributor. You can claim he's disruptive all you want, but all you have (so far) is that ArbCom said that he was disruptive in areas "relating to the Gender gap task force". This is article space, and if you can't state why Sitush is wrong about his opinion that the article isn't very good, then maybe Sitush is right. You have currently not refuted his arguments for removal, only providing vague statements like "please don't pretend ignorance - this is what they all say" (diff) and then undoing him again with the message to "see talk" (diff), in which I assume you meant the message above where you accused Sitush of "trying to disrupt things here" and using an argument of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (in that other reliable sources can just claim that more x did y in z year, while Sitush is making in your opinion the unreasonable demand that this article needs specific statistical data) (diff, made a few minutes before aforementioned edit to the article). However, Sitush never mentioned "statistics" in any regard. He just stated that the sources did not support the claim. In my opinion, we might be able to come to a consensus on "many", but only if we have a civil discussion about the sentence. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've stated why Sitush is wrong. I've also stated that he is being disruptive. Knock it off, I don't put up with bullying. We can take it straight to AE if you'd like. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I call you. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Guts, I will admit. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering Sitush later also deleted "Many women began speaking out in creative ways on social media about their experiences of violence and sexual abuse." I've replaced it with 2014 was described as "the year women joined forces online and the Internet listened". I hope there won't be objection to this as it's clearly supported by the existing references. It's literally the title of one of the refs. [11] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to the thread above, that is linked in this thread. Now stop messing around and respond to the concerns and suggestions raised there. This seems to be turning into meatpuppetry and I would urge any neutral party to recognise that. The more this goes on, the more it is based on op-eds and that is simply wrong. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I suggest starting an RfC on the issue. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free. Let's say that I'm getting quite a few emails about it but people do not want to put their head above the parapet. And I will restate that this article probably can be redeemed rather than deleted but it needs a lot of work if that is to happen. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: What should the questions be? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I can assure you that I'm not a meatpuppet of Smallbones. I'm pretty sure I've never even interacted with him/her before today, although I do tend to agree with their observation this all seems disruptive. To focus on article content, what more do you want discussed? Both of the brief summaries you objected to have now been removed and replaced with a direct word-for-word quote from a RS. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

When Sitush is around, you will be treated to a constant barrage of frequent tirades, absurd accusations, ANIs, SPIs, etc. and the whole area comes to be seen as "problematic" because of those tirades, absurd accusations etc. The topic of this article is simple enough, but it will be made problematic, through polemics, etc. There is a reason why people chose to ignore.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@OrangesRyellow: If you have a problem with Sitush's behaviour, why don't you take it up at the proper forum? Such as WP:AN/I or possibly WP:AE. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chess:Because I think I am better off doing more constructive things in my limited wiki-time.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@OrangesRyellow: Making unsourced accusations of tendentious behavior isn't very constructive. If Sitush is really that bad for editing, don't you think it'll help other editors, and yourself, if you report him to AN/I and save on suffering in the future? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not up for the drama, but Chess, if you're interested on saving on suffering in future, maybe bring Sitush to WP:AN3 for edit warring/4 reverts in 24 hours. Although, I guess he did self-revert the last one, but according to edit summary that was only because the final revert was intended as some sort of battleground move against Smallbones, and he later realized he was not reverting Smallbones. [12],[13],[14],[15],[16]. I agree with OrangesRyellow's observations. This topic seems to be being made problematic when it doesn't need to be. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR again, I think. There is also a case open at WP:AE if you wish to comment there. I agree that the topic need not be problematic but unfortunately it is. This is because of poor writing, poor sourcing and what seems to be a pov-driven stance. Some bits, though, have improved since I first commented here, so we're making progress. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Sitush, you appear to have violated that. I'm honestly not inclined to go to AE right now, I would just like to ask you to please stop edit warring, engaging in battleground here, and making bad faith accusations of meat puppetry with no justification or rationale given. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make more than three reverts, as far as I am aware. If you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is then perhaps it would be better not to open the mouth in the first place because it will achieve nothing? It is quite obvious that people are ignoring my expressed doubts about this article: it may not be organised meatpuppeting but it is a very peculiar situation when a host of people who frequent a particular project seem unwilling even to acknowledge the existence of entirely valid queries. There is no battleground stuff going on that I can see but there are a host of potential violations of policy, guidelines and, well, common sense. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I linked the difs showing more than 3 reverts above. replying "If you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is then perhaps it would be better not to open the mouth in the first place" seems like more battleground. I just want the disruption/edit warring to stop. I personally have not ignored you. I asked you what your objection was to the third rewrite of that sentence you deleted. I did so even after you accused me of being Smallbone's meat puppet but got no response. [17] I think OrangesRyellow makes good point regarding reasons why people may chose to ignore [18]. Sitush, I don't want to get caught up in a lengthy ANI or AE dispute with you. I'd prefer to focus on editing this article. I'm simply asking for the edit warring, battleground disruption etc to please stop.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I self-reverted, so I didn't exceed anything. If you think I did then report me. And if you want to turn your opinion about my behaviour more generally into something of note then report me. Otherwise, it is just your opinion. I've not seen your query directed at me but will try to find it now; unlike some others, I am prepared to respond to queries. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this the edit to which you are referring? - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's are all difs again: [19],[20],[21],[22],[23]. According to your edit summary you self reverted the last one not to avoid exceeding 3RR, but because you meant to engage in some sort of battleground with Smallbones and you apparently later realized you were were not actually reverting Smallbones.[24].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. We have been talking past each other, presumably because you did not see this, which I think is also linked in this section. My objection to the Leung thing is that it is yet another op-ed and we already have loads of them. It isn't factual and it isn't necessary; rather, it forms a part of the subjective house of cards upon which this article is based. I'm actually quite surprised to see so many people cheerleading whom usually I see bemoaning the state of women's affairs. I refer you to, for example, this negative, this one, and this one. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How should the article be improved?

User:Sitush, among others, has raised concerns over the article's content. What steps can we take to improve the article? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the RFC as they can only be effective with a specific question. See "What do other editors think about the discussions on this page?" at WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

An old debate

Sigh, and sorry. "Opened a debate about the abuse of women by men in power, and the difficulty of reporting it and being believed ..." That debate was opened way before 2014 and we even link to an article about a recent earlier occurrence, ie: Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, which erupted in 2012. Maybe this sentence is a North American angle, although I'd be surprised if the debate there did not exist earlier also. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

anyone? If not, I will remove this op-ed sourced stuff also. - Sitush (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, removing an entire paragraph along with 5 RS refs does not seem reasonable. According to your above concerns you objected to the implication that this debate was new to 2014. No one disagreed, so it would have been reasonable for you to tweak the phrase "opened the debate". This was the only part of the paragraph which implied this was a new debate. However, you removed this entire paragraph from article:

Women's allegations of assault or harassment at the hands of prominent men – including Bill Cosby in the United States and Jian Ghomeshi in Canada – opened a debate about the abuse of women by men in power, and the difficulty of reporting it and being believed.[2][24][25][26] Scotland Yard's Operation Yewtree in the UK, an investigation triggered by the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, led to convictions for the sexual assault of women or girls against Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and Dave Lee Travis, all well-known men in the media and entertainment industry.[27]

[25]

Honestly, removing the entire paragraph and it's accompanying 5 reliable source references seems wp:battleground and WP:POINTy to me. I've previously politely asked you to please stop disrupting in the "Don't understand objections to article section" [26],[27] and apparently administrator EdJohnston recommended you take this page off your watchlist in recent AE complaint [28]. Sitush, I'd like to ask again that you please stop disruptively editing the article (i.e. please do not delete an entire paragraph and 5 refs because no one has objected to a talk page suggestion which only involves deleting or tweaking 3 words). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had a problem, you should have said something. Your change does not address all of the concerns. I'm not the one being a problem here. See, for example,. Talk:Women's_rights_in_2014#Yewtree. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking

We're supposed to link stuff, we're supposed to be fair. I can understand (although I dislike) the citation format changes but some of the adjustments in this edit are plain wrong. Perhaps the most serious if the removal of my clarification that Utah's concealment laws mean that the university could not in fact control the gun situation - the authorities did not "decline" because they woke up one morning and felt like it. Have I misunderstood the source here?

And please note that there is a difference between someone who plays American football and an American footballer. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (

I think "football player" would be a little better here as well and I've changed it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks., I still think "declined" is a loaded term in these circumstances, given that the authorities said they had no alternative under law. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading Gun laws in Utah (and elsewhere) it seems to me that you are correct. If there is no further debate I think that to simply state "declined" is not accurate or fair to the university - unless there is more to this than I am aware of? Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, there do not appear to be any objections. I'm not sure how to go about changing the wording - any suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we not simply revert back to the phrasing in my version, which is a part of the diff in my opening message to this thread? Does it not do the job? - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Glass ceiling

The articles mentions a few individual "successes" relating to the glass ceiling but I think it may well be another case of over-egging based on the enthusiasm for Solnit etc. For example, see this about the UK. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Huff Post has quite a lot of articles about this topic, some from 2014. One op-ed even refers to a "glass floor" for men - a new phrase to my ears. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to add something about the glass ceiling thing, using sources such as this. Would it be best to create a new section? "Employment and finances" or something like that. We could also include information about how 2014 UK government policy announcements regarding caps on social security benefits etc were criticised for disproportionately affecting women.

I feel sure that similar information must exist for other countries. It certainly would be good to see some other countries mentioned somewhere, eg: Germany and Australia. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pointless opinion

Krishna Majumdar of the National Federation of Indian Women wrote in July that the Delhi and Badaun attacks were "nothing less than landmarks for women in India – landmarks in their consciousness of what men do, and can do, to them," and that "the machismo of the male, sexual assault or the fear of it, will not let women be truly free." is a pretty pointless opinion from an activist. Pointless because, despite the hype, there have been many reported rapes in India during 2014, two years after the Delhi event. It looks like nothing has changed on the ground, whatever "consciousness" may have been raised. India is still very much a male-dominated society and anyone who denies that needs their head seeing to. What we are showing here, as so often in the article, is an opinion that really doesn't have any practical merit and almost certainly has no factual basis. I'm beginning to wonder if there is an element of these activists trying to lead the conversation under the guise of reacting to it. How much do the reader actually gain from seeing these soundbites, especially if they are not matched by obvious improvements on the ground? - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one that added that - please help me to improve it. It can be very difficult to try to get a message across in a sentence or two, and especially so when there is always the threat that it will be called copy vio. Yes, I agree that nothing in India has changed even though the Delhi rape/murder did result in several new laws, except for one thing: Consciousness was raised and I think that the Delhi article contains RS to support that fact. That may not seem like much, but it is. I'm old enough to have actually been there when the Women's Movement was born and I know that that is exactly how these things start - at a certain point women who were not even aware of their second-class status suddenly become aware. Anyone who understands the history of the women's movement knows this and I could give plenty of personal experiences as well. So that is what I'd like to say in just a few words as it applies to India - how can I do it? Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the principle of raised consciousness being a first step - it is almost a truism, and goes back long before the 1960s etc, eg: suffragettes in politics raised consciousness in that sphere just as the claim is that the India rapes raised consciousness in another sphere. I'm just not sure that the support is really there for it, and I'd be particularly wary of any group associated with the Communist parties of India (as is the one cited). Anyway, I'll go read the source again and see if I can sift out the polemic from the fact. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry. I've looked at the source again and it seems to say nothing at all about raised consciousness among women, or even the 2012 and 2014 incidents, after the first paragraph. Unless you can point out something that I have missed, it seems to be mostly a review of past incidents, the historic nature of the dysfunctional society etc, all of which is old news. I'll have to see if there is anything elsewhere that supports what you want to say but I do think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse by doing this that way. That was the problem when this article was first created, of course: it was an attempt to write to a script. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that I should not even include anything she has to say, or what? Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem great to me because it is an opening sentence to an article and the issue is not referred to again in the thing - it dangles. It might just be a case of very poor writing style, although the rest of it indicates someone who is well-educated. I've just found this, which also contains a rather vague soundbite from an activist but does provide a tad of context. I'll see if I can spot anything else. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here, too. That would also highlight the caste-related variances in discrimination, which sort of mirrors Manjoo's stuff about how violence in the US is disproportionate. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with those quotes and I don't understand the objection that we shouldn't use them because India is still a very much male-dominated society. The quotes, "nothing less than landmarks for women in India – landmarks in their consciousness of what men do, and can do, to them," and that "the machismo of the male, sexual assault or the fear of it, will not let women be truly free." .....um, in what way does that contradict that India is still very much a male-dominated society? On the contrary, it seems to support it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does the source support its opening statement. Think about how we write articles and how even half-decent students are taught to write essays: the first paragraph, and often the first statement, sets out the purpose or summarises the content that follows. The source makes a statement and nowhere thereafter follows through with it. Instead, it becomes a survey of history etc, which has no particular relevance to the stated fact. It is a fairly typical polemic, as was this article until recent improvements: find an eye-catching opener and then do whatever you feel like doing regardless of it. It is her opinion and it is one for which she gives absolutely zero substantiation, and it was written in the context of a political situation (attacks against Communists) of which she is a part because of her party affiliation. If we're going to allow this through, then in principle I could very easily swamp this article with rebuttal equivalents from, say, the men's rights movement (who are often equally poor in their style). Surely we can find something better? I've linked to a couple above that certainly are more useful. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, thanks for the two additional sources. I think that they contain useful information, but you have not convinced me that the article I used is not appropriate. You first argued that since consciousness raising had not cut down on violence against women it was pointless to mention it. Then you backtracked saying that as a first step, it was important after all. Then you argued about the Communist aspect of the women's group, suggesting that as a reason not to use it. Now you are arguing about the writing style, its political context, and that its not substantiated. And you are also threatening to swamp the article with "rebuttal equivalents from, say, the men's rights movement". Exactly what are you suggesting needs rebuttal, and what exactly would the men's rights movement find objectionable? Gandydancer (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not threatening to do anything, merely pointing out how inclusion criteria could be gamed by men's rights activists. And since when has there been a requirement that only one reason should be allowed? There are a multitude of reasons why the quote/source is not worth mentioning. Another slightly concerning one is that, despite my familiarity with the Indian topic area, I'd never heard of the publication before even though it has been around for a few decades. That said, it looks like I am going to be in a minority, at least until the wider community realises what is going on. I am unlikely to be around when that happens but my thoughts will be on record. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rashida Manjoo

I'd be surprised if the UK is the only country criticised by Rashida Manjoo in the entire of 2014, although that is what is implicit in what the article says at the moment. Also, since it seems that op-eds are deemed acceptable here, her comments really should be offset by something such as this. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone got any comments regarding this issue or the proposed counterpoint? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I really can't see your objections to her criticisms. Keep in mind:

"Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, told The Independent that “it's absolutely vital” that we take the findings “as a wake-up call to recognise the depth and severity of the problem. We still have gender inequality in the UK [yet] we are so quick to point the finger at other countries and suggest women [here] are equal. The reality is that girls are suffering in schools, women are discriminated in the work place, and large sections of the media continue to portray women as dehumanised sex objects.”

This is a very brief overview and I can't see where every subject must have a counterpoint. Not to say that perhaps the article may use a few more... The article will be improved as it goes along. Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that there are problems in the UK. Probably not as severe as in Africa, India, Pakistan, UAE etc but nonetheless present. I'm just flabbergasted if Manjoo only commented on the UK situation, given her role, and there does seem to be a counterpoint that is at least as valid as the numerous op-eds that we already use in the article. It is about weight and neutrality.

And, yes, the article is improving a bit. That is happening because people like me are critiquing it. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I note that the Bates quote was not present when I first raised this issue above. Obviously, Bates is involved in a related activist project and might arguably be considered another op-ed. Here's a story about Manjoo's opinions of Mexico. And another that was probably reported somewhere about her views regarding the US. If her opinion counts - and given the status of the UN, it should - then we should cover the ground better. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, her US remarks are an excellent read. A quote:

"With diverse levels of commitment, resources and political will, most countries have put in place measures in an attempt to curb the prevalence of violence against women. However, and despite these efforts, violence against women remains a pervasive and widespread phenomenon, and no single country can claim that there is progressive elimination occurring."

So unlike some others, I guess that she sees no watershed moment in 2014. Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reinstated this, I gave some notice regarding inclusion above and no-one seemed to have a problem. Nowhere does the reinstated text say that Delingpole is a columnist for the Telegraph (although he does in fact write for it quite often), and we are just reporting what he did say. I could add a load more citations because there was quite a backlash to Manjoo's statements, rightly or wrongly. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now found the point about "most sexist" that Gandydancer referred to when removing the above. I've amended the statement to include the Manjoo quote from the New Statesman. I have no idea who is right because her actual report says nothing about these issues. Similarly, I'm still trying to work out the usefulness of the two centre-left/liberal newspapers we cite, given that the comments do not seem to appear in her official report, which we also cite. That report, btw, would be useful for the point I have made elsewhere regarding how UK economic measures are adversely impacting on women. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian government

Should the Egyptian government's criminalisation of harassment be moved out of the Street harassment section and into the Laws section? I can see arguments for both locations. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)