User talk:BarbD

Welcome!

Hello, BarbD, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 22:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hyacinth, Thanks for welcoming me on the Engish Wikipedia. --BarbD 13:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hi... there's one difference between German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia regarding Articles for Deletion. Here, we don't leave our comments on why the article should be deleted on the article itself, as you did here. All comments are made on the AFD page itself (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance), which you are supposed to be the first to edit. Just follow the steps at the bottom of WP:AFD. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (auch bei de: tätig)[reply]

Thanks und Danke ;)..--BarbD 17:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream feminism

I am asking for the fourth time that you at least address my concern about referring to mainstream feminism in articles that refer to Christina Hoff Sommers, who defines mainstream feminism differently from you. I am wondering if you read the talk pages at all, because I have gone into detail and you have given no responses. I also object to your referring to others' edits as POV, then call CHS "conservative." I think that the other editor handled this better, taking a paragraph to address that others consider her conservative and what she says about it. I don't see the need of using the adjective in the opening sentence if CHS disputes it and the idea is covered later in the article. NickelShoe 22:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't work much in the English Wikipedia. And then I really don't understand the problem of labelling someone 'conservetive' as negative. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Hoff Sommers concepts and the concepts of what she herself calls "academic feminism". I tried to make the differences clear, without judging. I will try and find some articles where this is explained to prove that this is not POV. --84.131.23.170 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)--BarbD 22:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) sorry, I was already logged out...[reply]

I tried to talk about this on the talk pages, because I'm not so set in my ways that I can't imagine that you have good reasons. But you kept editing without addressing my concerns on the talk pages. I explained my position, but you never explained yours. "Conservative" isn't negative, it's POV. People frequently call her conservative to attack her credibility--to make her sound POV. I don't have a problem with explaining how she's conservative, just with making that part of the intro. If she is conservative, reading about her ideas should be enough for the readers to understand that. I welcome conversation on the relevant talk pages. NickelShoe 17:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

asking for comments regarding the exclusion of women in List_of_major_opera_composers

I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music [[1]], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.

A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.

I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]