Talk:Bechdel test/Archive 1

Origin
The article credits this to 1985. I'm certain Samuel R Delany featured this exact question in essays that he wrote in the 1970s, about science fiction novels. So I think we're ten years off on crediting this – at least ten years off, Delany got it from somewhere. I'll see if I can find the reference. If this test existed before Bechdel, then the article needs some discussion of its pre-Bechdel history. Jim Hardy (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hooray, a separate Wikipedia page for Bechdel test! I will ask the same question I've asked elsewhere -- anyone have any luck finding a comprehensive look at what fraction of films in various categories pass the test? Red314159 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proper Noun
The "Bechdel Test" (or the alternate names) is a proper noun, a name, indicated by a definite article "the". Proper nouns are capitalized (e.g. Eiffel Tower, not Eiffel tower; Union Station, not Union station). Most of the article's citations – from Entertainment Weekly and MTV to The New Yorker and All Things Considered – do so. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this topic is a proper noun just yet. Our policy is to avoid unneeded capitalization (WP:MOSCAPS). The sources you mention may simply use a different style guide which favors capitalization. I'm requesting a third opinion at WP:3O.  Sandstein   10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi. I'm volunteering to give the requested third opinion. Please sit sight and I will get back to you. Formerip (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Please remember that third opinions are not binding and, if either of you is unhappy with this opinion, you are free to pursue another means of dispute resolution.


 * It's a mistake to think that "Bechdel t/Test" should be capitalised because it is a proper noun or because it has achieved a certain level of fame. Very well-known noun-phrases of this eponymous type are often seen with only the creator's name capitalised (e.g "Boyle's law") and fairly obscure ones can be seen capitalised all the way through (e.g. "the Behrens–Fisher Problem"). It's purely a question of style.
 * Wikipedia's MOS provides guidance Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters. I reckon this might be slightly controversial, but there is it.
 * It might be argued that "Bechdel t/Test" does not fall under this guidance, because it is not within the domain of science or mathematics. However, spot-checking a few examples suggests that WP practice is to follow the MOS style for science and mathematics by analogy: Godwin's law, Parkinson's law, Poe's law.
 * The title of the article should not be "Bechdel Test".
 * Formerip (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thorough assessment!  Sandstein   13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned in NY Times
By A. O. Scott, December 6, 2012 -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy
Grey's Anatomy is a terrible example of a show that fails the Bechdel Rule, since it *passes* the test all the time. While relationships with men are often major plots, so is competition between the female interns for surgical roles, Meredith's struggle to live up to the legend of her mother, the troublesome relationship she has with her mother when she develops Alzheimer's Disease, Christina's obsession with becoming a 'cardio god', and so on. The female characters have conversations about these things all the time. I'm removing that line since it's clearly misleading. Saint91 (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That may well be so, but we're supposed to follow published sources, not engage in original research. And the cited NPR feature does mention Grey's Anatomy as an example of failing works.  Sandstein   14:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's original research when you're *adding* material to articles for which there are no reliable sources. It's not original research when you make the editorial choice not to add to an article from an otherwise reliable source because it is demonstrably inaccurate.

If I came across a strange BBC article which stated that Tony Blair has one ear, I might not be able to find a reliable source which explicitly says Tony Blair has two ears, but it would be easy to establish if the article was accurate or not by looking at pictures of him. In such a case, the common sense thing to do would to avoid using the BBC article as a source.

Similarly, I can establish that the Bechdel Test is passed by Grey's Anatomy all the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYSzJIPzq9Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-wFQyYnlq8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x25e-5hdZE Saint91 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Determining that a reliable source is inaccurate is also an act of (original) research, especially in a case such as this, where passing the test is often a matter of judgment (see the section "Limitations"). I tend to agree with you on the basis on the excerpts linked to above, but these only apply to the individual episodes at issue. As regards the whole show, we have to defer to sources.  Sandstein   16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with the removal of Grey's anatomy. Examples are not essential parts of an article, and if there are good arguments for not including them, there is no need to include them. Furhtermore, did you check the quality of the source? It is just someone expressing an opinion on the radio.  Lova Falk     talk   20:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis tag
This edit removes a tag which is so obviously valid that I find it difficult to believe it was confusing. The article blends together a number of different observations under the same title, some of which (such as Woolf's) not only predate it by decades but have no evidence to link them to the observation in question. Wikipedia is not the place to piece these together into a coherent argument. The tag should be restored until this work has been completed, which will probably necessitate excising any parts of it that don't demonstrably have a connection to Bechdel's comic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bit perplexing. Admittedly the Woolf essay predates the Bechdel test, but I don't think it's original research to mention it here: it serves only to provide a bit of historical context for the broader issue of the role of women in fiction. We don't make any original claims with regard to it, like for example that Bechdel was influenced by Woolf, or some such. Everything else is sourced directly to works that cover Bechdel's test or its application. Can you provide a specific example of a statement in the article that you think is synthetis or otherwise original research?  Sandstein   14:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies: deeper inspection of the sources does suggest that they (other than Woolf) do indeed refer back to the original material. I still think the Woolf section needs to go unless a reliable secondary source ties it to the phenomenon, as in my mind it's a textbook example of SYN to introduce "precursors" to modern inventions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, WP:SYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I think that's not what the Woolf quote does. It does not state or imply a connection between Woolf's observation and the much later Bechdel test, but is there only to illustrate that the role of women in fiction was a subject of discussion even before the 1980s. An argument could be made that this would more properly belong in an article with a broader scope, though.  Sandstein   20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it belongs in a more widely-scoped article. It's important to note that this article's subject is not "bias in the portrayal of women in fiction", but specifically a device used to examine that concept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Alison Bechdel
shouldn't Alison Bechdel's name appear earlier in the article? it currently doesn't appear until 2nd paragraph of History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensorsweep (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, done.  Sandstein   06:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My edit
Hello, I made an edit to the article about the Bechdel test that you undid. I added "(and have names)" - yes, you are correct this is not in the original cartoon on which the test came from, but the test has evolved and has been adapted in research. Please look at it before changing it. The "name" element is important to us scholars. For information about me see: andrewpegoda.com/cv Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.70.182 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm copying this from my talk page to Talk:Bechdel test, which is the place for discussions concerning this topic, and will reply there.  Sandstein   06:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, my reply: I've undone the edit again, as this part of the "History" section is not the proper section in which to discuss whether the women should be named. That paragraph discusses the test as it was introduced in the comic strip by Alison Bechdel, that is to say, without names. It specifically quotes the character in the comic strip, and you can't change here what that character said then. Now, the article already contains, at the end of the section, the paragraph "Several variants of the test have been proposed—for example, that the two women must be named characters". It seems to me that this covers what you were trying to add. Do you have any other reliable sources about this topic that could be used here?  Sandstein   06:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Extent of Limitations
Question: To what extent does discussing men cause a fail of the test? Admittedly this is the first time I have come across the concept, but it does strike me that in real life, two female friends meeting in conversation who know that the other is in a relationship would at least ask how each other's boyfriend/husband is doing? And consequently, that it would be unrealistic of the film to ignore this. So does that qualify for a fail, or is it the opposite and any mention of work/travel/the weather would cause a pass however small?

While I certainly don't feel qualified to edit this particular entry at all, I'd argue that the definition and consequently, the "limitations" section could do with significant expansion to discuss the exact consensus on pass/fail of this test? GGdown (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "it does strike me that in real life, two female friends meeting in conversation who know that the other is in a relationship would at least ask how each other's boyfriend/husband is doing?" -- Does it strike you that way about men, as well? "any mention of work/travel/the weather would cause a pass however small?" -- As long as it's not part of a conversation about men ... do read the article, as this is already discussed. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to interpret it as "there is at least a stretch of conversation that is not about men", not "the entire conversation is not about men". One rule variant I heard of is at least 60 seconds of screen time (not necessarily consecutive) that is 2 women talking about something other than men.  Tamtrible (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Other tests...
Should we mention http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/mako-mori-test-bechdel-pacific-rim/ ?Tamtrible (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jezebel.com fails the Bechdel test
I was wondering whether or not we should include the fact that Jezebel.com, the extremist faux Feminist site, should be included in this article for their failure to past the Bechdel test? It seems notable, as it shows the failings of the test and the site has also carried out an article praising the Bechdel tests implementation in Sweden as furthering Feminism. It seems like we should include it in the article.

Can we get a vote? 106.68.20.145 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Sutter Cane


 * (a) we don't vote, (b) that website isn't a work of fiction so the test doesn't apply to it, and (c) we follow what reliable sources report, rather than engaging in original research to promote an agenda, see WP:NOR.  Sandstein   06:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No criticism section...
Please! Under those "rules" I can think of several movies that can pass this so called "test", with flying colours... Basically, ANY porn movie that has a good plot will pass, some of them starred by Jenna Jameson and other by Rocco Siffredi, but I will just put TWO tiny examples:

"Flashpoint X" with Jameson "Marquis de Sade" with Siffredi

If someone watched this movies, and many others from other porn stars, will notice that they actually pass perfectly the Bechdel test. In those movies:
 * There are least two women in it,
 * Who, at some point, talk to each other
 * About something besides a man

Can someone add a Criticism section, because this test FAILS miserably when it come to woman's sexual objectification. And, Yes, I am no ashamed when I talk about porn...--FaustoLG (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You know? actually any lesbian porn pass with clean hands...--FaustoLG (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're taking it rather literally. Perhaps you are looking at it backwards as well. "A film that fails the test is biased" is NOT the same as "A film that passes the test is not biased". Kinda like a man with a high PSA score has cancer, but people with a low score may or may not have cancer.
 * Anyway, at the end of the day, adding "criticism" to the article will require reliable sources for the criticism. I haven't seen any, but I don't read everything. There's just too much. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

FaustoLG -- The main point is not that every movie which passes the test is supposedly enlightenedly feminist, but that year after year, only a fairly small proportion of wide-release Hollywood movies pass the test. It really says more about the commercial film industry as whole than it does about any one particular movie... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the "limitations" section. It addresses your concerns (at least generally, if not the specific examples you used). It's more sort of a general temperature reading/litmus test than some sort of absolute measure of the quality and/or feminist cred of any given movie. The fact that any given movie does or doesn't pass the test isn't as important as what the general failure rate (high in mainstream movies) says about the movie industry in general. Tamtrible (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Opposite
Is there a term for an opposite test where 2 men have to talk about an issue other than women? Ranze (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Accepted media norm"? One of the striking points of the Bechdel test might be that it appears quite ridiculous when reversed, because the vast majority of media passes that reversed test without anyone needing to dig for the relevant male conversation. 87.158.24.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ranze, for any rare phenomenon, one usually is interested in how often it occurs. Sometimes, that can be accomplished by determining how often it does NOT occur. In this case, I don't believe that is the easier approach. The Bechdel test is an attempt to gauge a very minimal level of female-related activity. Even using these modest criteria, the incidence is tiny. Your question, for a test where 2 men have at least one conversation that is NOT about women, would be satisfied by the majority of motion pictures. For example, in the USA, it is likely that all G-rated films would satisfy your criteria, as well as many action-adventure films and prose. Thus it is not especially interesting to study. If this were in the field of epidemiology, it would be relevant, as incidence of less than 1% can be of great concern. This isn't epidemiology though. --FeralOink (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One legitimate use of the reverse test would be figuring out if a movie doesn't pass the Bechdel test not because of bias, but because it's just a movie with very little conversation, or mostly conversations about relationships, or mostly conversations between opposite-sex characters. For example, if a movie involves a small number of people of both sexes trapped in a confined space, or a couple traveling together, there may be no single-sex conversations for either gender.  If it doesn't pass Bechdel, but *also* doesn't pass reverse-Bechdel, then... it's just that kind of movie.  No real bias implied.


 * Another use, of course, is to show that the test *is* a reasonable measure of bias. Noting the very, very few cases where a movie doesn't pass the reverse test shows that it's not just that everyone in movies talks about or to members of the opposite sex most of the time, but that many movies are all about the mens.  Tamtrible (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reverse Bechdel test would not be a good measure of gender bias, but there still some good reasons to mention it in this article. First it makes a much stronger case if you can tell x% of movies does not pass the Bechdel test wile only y% (a much smaller number) do not pass the reverse test. Now one can only notice that the percentage of movies that fail the test is higher than expected (very subjective). And second: many people will wonder about the reverse test when reading this article, Wikipedia should help to satisfy their healthy curiosity. Nico (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this one . But it is a blog, I don t find a "serious" source.Nico (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a great many "chick flicks" and romantic novels that fail the reverse test! --BenMcLean (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably, but for general audience films, not so much. Without reliable sources discussing this, there is nothing to add here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sex in the City probably fails both, normal and reverse, test. Thelma and Louisa too in most part, as the girls talk about men all the time, and the men talk about girls.109.240.7.210 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Without reliable sources discussing this, there is nothing to add here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

re: the recent edit
If the character got a name later, maybe it could be "a then-unnamed character", as a compromise between brevity and completeness? Tamtrible (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Women" or "female characters"
To avoid edit wars, on my latest edit: As I see it, the test, *as it is used*, is considered a "pass" as long as at least 2 female characters talk to each other about something besides a male character. It's considered a "pass" even if the female characters are, for example, children, or talking cows, or aliens, as long as they're female; and it's not considered a pass if they're talking about a male character, even if it's a child or talking cow or alien. So, it seems reasonable for the first paragraph to change "woman" to "female character", and "man" to "male character" Yes, the *origin* of the test uses "woman" and "man", which is why I deleted my own edit making that change to the bit discussing the origin of the test. But I think editing the first paragraph as I did is valid. But, to avoid edit wars, I'll wait 'til someone else backs me up on it. Tamtrible (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph cites three sources for variations on the name "Bechdel test". All three of them explicitly define the term using the terms "women" and "men". I did not look through all of the sources. If some of them alter the definition, that might be worth mentioning or discussing, depending on how many sources and how much discussion they give. However, if, as I suspect, the majority use the definition from the comic, so should we. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I still feel like we should mention *somewhere* on the page that, at least as most people use it, the test refers to any female character, not just one that would reasonably be described as a woman, and any male character, not just one that would reasonably be described as a man. Can you suggest a better place for it?  Tamtrible (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That would depend on what the sources say about the subject. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with SummerPhD... AnonMoos (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as the sources say "women", so should we.  Sandstein   17:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with sourcing
I had an addition removed as "unsourced". I think it was valid, but I'm not sure where I can meaningfully source the material mentioned.

The additions:


 * Reverse Bechdel test

Mostly to show that the Bechdel test is a reasonable measure of bias, some people (usually concurrently) apply the exact gender reverse of the test--that is, whether or not a movie has 2 male characters who talk to each other about something besides a female. Very few popular or mainstream movies fail this test.


 * Racial Bechdel test

As a measure of racial bias, over-representation of whites in mass media, et cetera, some have suggested an equivalent test for people of color--that is, do 2 characters that are not white talk to each other about something besides a white character.

Some probably-not-academic-enough sources: http://reversebechdel.blogspot.com/p/introduction-to-reverse-bechdel.html, http://amptoons.com/blog/2008/10/03/the-reverse-bechdel-test/ , http://www.comicbookgrrrl.com/2012/05/30/women-in-comics-dc-vs-marvel-the-bechdel-test/ , http://racialbechdel.tumblr.com/ , http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/after-bechdel-test-i-propose-shukla-test-race-film (slightly different proposed test, but on similar lines) , http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeggansRule (likewise), http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/05/crowdsourcing-a-bechdel-test-for-people-of-color/ , http://goodmenproject.com/arts/blind-casting-a-black-mans-take-on-the-bechdel-test/ , http://www.racialicious.com/2008/11/12/is-there-a-bechdel-test-for-race/#comment-1065430 , and http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/09/01/the-bechdel-test-and-race-in-popular-fiction/

(I also altered the intro paragraph to note that test variations are used for things besides questions of gender bias)Tamtrible (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Yeah, I think that it would be useful to be able to mention that most works pass the reverse test, but I agree that the above sources for that topic are not reliable enough because they are all self-published (WP:SPS), such as blogs. Mentioning a racial variation would also be interesting, but I think we'd need to wait before any such variation is reported on by a reliable source other than the one proposing the variant, per WP:PSTS.  Sandstein  10:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

But it seems to me that the definition of "reverse Bechdel test" is incorrect: shouldn't it be, "Do two men talk to each other about a woman in a nonsexual way?" I mean, obviously there are oodles of male characters in film and they discuss women all the time. The salient point should be HOW they are talking about a woman. -- 11 August 2014 128.230.82.27


 * The standard answer is that if it's not discussed in external reliable sources then it's original research as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. The point of the reverse test isn't to see how men in movies talk about women.  It is to be, as closely as possible, an exact mirror of the main test, to show that the test is a reasonable measure--if most movies fail both tests, then failing either test doesn't mean much.  It can even be used to test whether a particular movie fails the original test for harmless structural reasons (for example, only the 2 leads (one male, one female) really talk, or all conversations are about both of the 2 leads) or because males are more broadly represented than females.  Tamtrible (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Pass and fail proportions sources
"Only a small proportion of films pass the Bechdel test" is not supported by the sources. Charles Stoss adds a 4th condition to the Bechdel Test before saying that most films would fail that criteria. This is a substantial variation from the original Bechdel Test and shouldn't be the lead in to this section. It gives readers an inaccurate picture of the proportion of films passing the test as laid out in the introduction. Secondly, the link for Reitman goes to a foreign language source where he makes a one-off comment about the matter. He hasn't studied the issue and provides no sources or statistics. It's just his (arguably mistaken) gut sense of the topic.

Might we consider opening with the Bechdel website statistic of 44% failing the test? While this too is problematic due to the "named character" criteria being added, it is the most comprehensive study of the test and puts an actual figure on it. --Orthlo (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure that leading with bechdeltest.com is the best option. It's not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, given that it's user-generated, and it may also have issues with selection bias, in that we don't know that the films analyzed there are a statistically accurate cross-section of all films. As to the other sources, language is not a criterium for reliability, and as concerns the Stross quote, the Google preview no longer works for me, but I don't remember any additional criterium he mentions.  Sandstein   08:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's in the 2nd paragraph of the section: "Stross noted that about half of the films that do pass the test only do so because the women talk about marriage or babies." Those are his additional requirements under which, he claims, a majority of films fail the test. He's not claiming that a majority of films fail the vanilla Bechdel Test. He makes an interesting point, but it shouldn't be cited twice, especially not as the lead in to the section. As it reads now, it gives the impression that Stoss states that a "small proportion of films pass the Bechdel test." And then, if you add his additional requirements about marriage and babies, a further 50% of the already small proportion that pass would also fail. This is simply not the case. --Orthlo (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionable inclusion
"Professionals' assumptions about the audience's preferences may also be relevant: a scriptwriting student at the University of California, Los Angeles wrote in 2008 that she was told by professors that the audience "only wanted white, straight, male leads" and not, as she quoted a male industry professional as saying, "a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about"'. This was sourced from the hathor legacy, a site where it appears anyone could submit an article.  I do not how selective they are about what they post, nor what are the requirements for a submitted essay to be included.  However, the quote used here, even despite the questionable source is purely anecdotal and don't know if it should be included and not at all helpful or encyclopedic.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

statistics
Hi, the edit you reverted here was by me - forgot to log in. Just wanted to note that the link being dead was not my main reason for deleting that bit of the article. The statistics cited really say nothing important and are even potentially misleading. The total amount of money earned by one class of films versus the total amount of money earned by another class of films says nothing about the relative money-making potential of the two types of films. Rather, it mainly speaks about the size of the two classes. It would be much like saying that because more of the money in your city exists outside of your neighborhood than inside it, your neighborhood must be poorer than other neighborhoods. But this is true of any neighborhood, because no neighborhood contains more than half the money in the entire city. (At least, in sensible cities!)

So I feel like this statistic is really not useful. Thoughts? Should I have written about this on the talk page before deleting the statistic? &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (Moved from my talk page) The working link is . In principle, I agree, but it's more understandable if one knows that they analyzed the 50 top-grossing films of 2013, as mentioned earlier in the article, and about half passed the test (clearly or dubiously). With this, the assertion that the passing half made more money than the failing half appears quite informative to me.  Sandstein   11:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the working link. Actually that seems makes it even more irrelevant.  If they only analyzed the 50 top-grossing films, their conclusion can only be that, if your film is already destined to be a top-50 film, passing the Bechdel test would give it a higher chance of furthermore being top-25. But the vast majority of films are not top-50 films. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Baby Got Back"
Re this edit. We do not have a reliable source directly saying the song passes the Bechdel test and is sexist. I would be less than shocked if we had a source saying the song is sexist. I would be fairly dumbfounded if a reliable source applied a test dealing with films to a song. The source you are looking for must fit a few criteria: Piecing together sources that say there are two named women, they have a conversation about something other than a man, etc. is synthesis and of no help here. (To drive the point home: You are unlikely to find a reliable source saying a particular song passes criteria for films. This would be like comparing a tossed salad to various French wines.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It must directly state that the song is "sexist".
 * 2) It must directly state that the film song "passes the Bechdel test".
 * 3) It must be a reliable source (user edited sites, such as Wikipedia, are not reliable).
 * I think you need to re-read this article, the Bechdel Test applies to all works of fiction, not just films. Even if it were limited to films, music videos are a form of film and Baby Got Back is a music video.
 * I don't understand why you're objecting so vehemently to this edit; Baby Got Back very clearly passes the weak formulation of the Bechdel test (only one of the women in the conversation has a name: Becky, so it doesn't pass the stronger version of the test that requires named women, nor is the conversation long enough for the 60 second requirement). I guess this is just one of those examples of why Wikipedia is garbage.
 * Additionally, Charlie Stross's blog post doesn't qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's rules, so the bits citing him (while relevant, interesting, and possibly correct) should be deleted. It is from his personal blog and he is not an established expert in the relevant field, nor has he been published by reliable third-party publications - NJM (talk)
 * We still do not have a reliable source saying the song passes the Bechdel test. We have synthesis. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Sandstein   18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We still do not have a reliable source saying the song passes the Bechdel test. We have synthesis. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Sandstein   18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Finkbeiner test edit warlet
The other tests have at least a brief description of what the test is/does, so the Finkbeiner test should have one, too. I can understand it being a short one, rather than the full list, since the test has a page of its own, but people shouldn't have to follow the list to get at least a *vague* idea what the test is about. If you have any suggestions for a better way to state it...Tamtrible (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Objections to the opening passage (as it stands now)
I’d like to raise a couple of objections to the opening passage. First, it alters The Bechdel Test so that it applies to all fiction, as well as films. This is a mistake, because is essential to any hypothesis that the original statement be “locked down” as tightly as possible and preserved. The reason for this is that the moment of the first alteration, when a hypothesis becomes something different, then all the preceding considerations, applications, and correlaries all become invalidated by the expanded version. It’s a common occurance, and it’s a common tendency on Wikipedia. For example, the altered iteration in that opening passage takes a bit of pressure off of Hollywood films, so that when someone tries to use the Bechdel Test as a critique of films, that argument can be easily invalidated by some Hollywood executive arguing, “Let’s not suggest there is a particular problem with films, because as the Bechdel Test (according to Wikipedia!) points out — it is not just Hollywood! The issue occurs in all of literature!” And thus the original point can be dodged, and Hollywood can carry on. Or in any discussion of films, the Bechdel Test, can be brushed aside or watered down in the same way.

The change in the opening passage also opens the door to all kinds of changes, some examples are discussed above on this talk page.

Who has the authority to say what the Bechdel Test is or isn’t? It might be nice if it were Allison Bechdel. However it is the nature of Wikipedia that it isn’t strict about questions of “Who has the authority” — any publshed source will do. The opening passage, as it now stands, is not supported at all. So the “authoritiy” in this case is merely the anonymous Wikipedia editor who typed it.

The solution is simple: Faithfully accept the definition of the Bechdel Test as it was first concieved, and so clearly stated, then of course variations can be imagined or posited, just don’t alter the original definition. There’s no need, and it threatens Bechdel’s idea. Barklerung (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, which specific changes do you propose?  Sandstein   14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) While I think I understand what some of your concerns are, I think you basic premise is slightly off-track and most of your subsequent discussion follows from there.
 * First, a point of order: The Bechdel test, as discussed here, is an idea presented in a comic strip. Bechdel's "little lesbian joke in an alternative feminist newspaper" while insightful, useful and fun is not Newton's Principa. The original author likely thought about it for a while and eventually used it in a strip. I do not mean to disrespect Bechdel's work (and, by extension, Liz Wallace and Virginia Woolf's) in any way when I say the strip is likely not based on academic research or empirical data. Rather, it is an insight, distilled into five brief panels. That any meaningful discussion of the concept extends beyond that essence is neither unusual nor inappropriate. While we can and should remain true to the sources available to us, we are not in any way bound to protect the original idea as "The Bechdel test". We say what reliable sources say about the theory.
 * "Originally conceived for evaluating films, the Bechdel test is now used as an indicator of gender bias in all forms of fiction."
 * "Several variants of the test have been proposed..."
 * "...with the added requirement that the women must be named characters."
 * "In addition to films, the test has been applied to other media such as video games and comics."
 * The article does seem to do a reasonable job of calling out alterations to the original idea and citing sources for them. If you see areas where it falls short, certainly feel free to shore it up. We can certainly note -- as our sources do -- their variations to the original idea. The ideas expressed here should come from independent reliable sources, not simply "any published source" and certainly not any "anonymous Wikipedia editor who typed it".
 * As for people accepting self-serving arguments based on the description of a comic strip on Wikipedia, I have some land in Florida I'd love to sell them. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this.  Sandstein   16:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this.  Sandstein   16:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether the Bechdel Test is a modest idea, or an idea as great as Newton's Principa — I don’t like to say, because my opinion in that way seems impertinant and I’d rather keep it out of the discussion, unless there’s a good reason. Of course, the Bechdel Test needs to be a “notable” idea in some way in order to exist as an article. However, I noticed that it is presented by WP as though it has been altered in a way that is a common form of erosion, and in a way that is not supported. The Bechdel Test is a relatively new idea that has hardly had time to be discussed and tested in it’s original form.

As the title of this section indicates my comments are limited to the opening passage. As to the suggestion (made above) that “We say what reliable sources say about the theory”, that is certainly not true regarding the opening passage. The claim that the Bechdel Test has been altered is not supported by any reliable source — it is simply stated — by whom? By some anonymous Wikipedia editor. The first two paragraphs contain no citations whatsoever. The third paragraph contains footnotes, but none of them support the idea of altering the Bechdel Test. Also those notes in the third paragraph are certainly not all reliable sources. One is a school paper that shows no sign of editing by anyone other than the author, one is a blog, and one is a comment by an anonymous Wikipedia editor. So when it’s suggested that “We say what reliable sources say”, the fact is we do not. This is a problem, as it violates the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing articles. Sources in this article don't go as far as the article does.

To respond the Sandstein, I’d suggest that the opening passage (with proper references) could be as follows:

The Bechdel test is seen as a challenge to the way women are represented in the film industry. It was introduced in Alison Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For. In a 1985 strip titled "The Rule”, an unnamed female character says that she only goes to a movie if it satisfies the following requirements:
 * 1) The movie has to have at least two women in it,
 * 2) who talk to each other,
 * 3) about something besides a man.

Then in sections that follow mention can be made of variations -- if they are sourced. Barklerung (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What you propose isn't compliant with our manual of style at WP:LEAD, which says that an article's lead paragraph should be a summary of the whole article. We can't therefore just reproduce the original definition, but must touch on everything the article does. Besides, "a challenge to the way women are represented in the film industry" is a really vague way of addressing what the test is about. It's about sexism.  Sandstein   09:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked at WP:LEAD (which you linked) and I see your point, the lead should include more than I suggested, as indicated at that page. Also I appreciate the sharper and clearer wording that you suggest with the use of the word “sexism”.  Perhaps we can consider all this, and see what others have to say, and see what might be possible.  Barklerung (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited the article, especially the lead section (which is discussed here). I edited the definition, because the idea that there is a “new” definition that has replaced the “old” definition was unsourced, now it follows the definition as reliable sources use it. I also added inline citations that support what’s in the lead section, and I tried to follow the WP guidelines on what a lead section is.  I moved the various alternate names for the test to that part of the article that discusses variations. I added a quote that expresses the test clearly.  Barklerung (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, but I reverted your edits because, in my view, they were detrimental to the quality of the article. Just looking at the lead alone, we should have a succinct definition of what this test is in the very first sentence, and not something vague like "is seen as a way to call attention to gender inequality". We also do not need verbatim reproductions of the test's questions, and not lengthy quoted commentary, especially not by somebody called "GrrlScientist" - that looks terribly unprofessional in a reference work. The lead is a concise summary, nothing more and nothing less. This level of detail and verbosity belongs in the article body, if at all.  Sandstein   15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sandstein! Your above comment is not supported by Wikipedia policies.  For example, you say “The lead is a concise summary, nothing more and nothing less.”  That is absolutely not true according to WP:LEAD.  Then you say, “We also do not need verbatim reproductions of the test's questions.”  That’s not supported by any policy.  If you believe that, your reversion didn’t remove the test questions.  The way you removed reliable sources is also a viloation of WP policies.  And you disapprove of the “look” of an author’s name?  Excuse me, but seems improper, because doesn’t every author have the right to use and be referred to by the name she chooses?   That’s how she publishes under the Guardian newspaper, which is a reliable source, which you  removed because you aparently didn’t like the woman's name. So, your reversion leaves completely unsourced opening paragraphs.  You shouldn’t treat Wikipedia as if anarchy reigns and the policies can be ignored.  Barklerung (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional lead discussion
Gender inequality in fiction and it's alleged reason sexism are just that, someone's opinion. It shouldn't be presented as facts. I propose to change opening to something like this: The test is used by some as an indicator for the active presence of women in films and other fiction, and to call attention to what test supporters perceive as gender inequality in fiction due to sexism.[1]. I am not a native English speaker so the statement may not be very good from that perspective, but I hope it clearly shows what I have in mind. --Nomad (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean, but the impression I get from reading the sources cited here is that gender inequality, at least, in fiction, isn't really a fact that is in dispute. I mean, can you find a source that says that the Bechdel test measures or indicates something that doesn't exist? Also, "test supporters" implies that the test is something people support or oppose as one would a political opinion, which isn't the case: it seems there's just (a bit of) disagreement about how useful it is as a tool to measure gender disparity. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, we must reflect what sources say, and your proposed lead would make it seem that the test is much more controversial that it really is. I'd be ready to talk about ways to rephrase the lead to avoid the implication that gender disparity is necessarily due to (only) sexism, which I don't think we can present as a given.  Sandstein   16:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Romantic context
I thought the test required a romantic context? So if two woman had a conservation where they criticized the fact the president has always thus far been a man, it would pass. As though they are discussing a man its not a case of oh the male protagonist is so hot I want to marry him.


 * That's a variation that has, perhaps, come up sometimes, but it's not in the original test. And kind of not in the spirit of the test.  I'm personally inclined to give conversations a semi-pass if, for example, it's a crime or medical show and they're discussing the victim/patient of the week more or less incidentally, but it still *technically* fails the test.  Tamtrible (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest renaming article title to "Bechdel-Wallace test"
Based on Alison Bechdel's own preference (from her Fresh Air interview, should the title be properly renamed to give credit to Liz Wallace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphill80 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Our policy is to name every article after the most common name for the topic in reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, the topic is nearly universally referred to as "Bechdel test", and as long as our sources continue to do so, so do we.  Sandstein   19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME applies. The majority of sources refer to it as the "Bechdel test". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Three points:  ʘ dimensional  talk  18:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't a redirect take care of "the most common name"? (Bechdel-Wallace test, redirected from Bechdel test)
 * Of course the majority of sources call it the Bechdel test - the author of the strip only just recently requested that co-credit be given to Wallace.
 * Bechdel herself requested the test be renamed., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0dimensional (talk • contribs) 14:59, August 27, 2015‎
 * Your argument, essentially, is that most people do call it the Bechdel test, but should call it the Bechdel-Wallace test. While this is likely true, it misses the point. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Our articles primarily aim to describe things as they are, including what people call them, rather than the way things should be, including what, perhaps, they should call them. (As an example, he may wish to be called Yusuf Islam, but most people still refer to him as Cat Stevens. Ditto various names throughout his career for Prince.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Bechdel-Wallace test" in lead?
I'm doubtful whether it is wise to include the naming variant "Bechdel-Wallace test" in the lead because, as any Google search will show, it is used an order of magnitude less than the most common name, "Bechdel test". This alternate name would therefore be probably best mentioned in the body of the article together with other alternatives such as "Mo Movie Measure". That Alison Bechdel herself has expressed a preference for this variant is of course not relevant, because Wikipedia follows the practice of reliable sources, not authority figures.  Sandstein  07:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as the mention is kept brief, I don't think it's worth an edit war... Tamtrible (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Image deletion
The lead image (File:Dykes to Watch Out For (Bechdel test origin).jpg) is being considered for deletion. gobonobo + c 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seem utterly stupid to delete the image that spawned the test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow the link. If you feel the image meets out non-free content criteria, explain how. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mako Mori test
I've undone the deletion of this section (which had been removed per WP:UNDUE). To explain: I do not think it has undue weight in the article (it's only two sentences and three bullet points) and, although it may have started on Tumblr, it has been referenced elsewhere and is suitably cited here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It was referenced in a trashy magazine, The Daily Dot, then the aggregate website The_Atlantic copy and pasted most of that article. And it still traces back to one anonymous tumblr user.  The rabid fandom is shameless, as Mako's story does revolve around a man, and the neckbeards seem to think that just because she doesn't put out, that she doesn't serve as the love interest for the male lead.  This is the bad journalism at its worst and it doesn't belong here.  We're not going to be sucked into the Pacific Rim circlejerk.  It's a dumb guy movie about robots fighting monsters, not some ambitious and risque masterpiece advancing the status of women in film. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't calling people you disagree with names, not only a poor argument but also cyberbullying? Also you don't seem to have a very neutral point of view on the film.

If a deletion has been undone, why don't I see the Mako Mori test in the article, when I did the last time I looked at it? I went to this article just now, to get the name and definition right—gone without a trace, except for this mention on the Talk page! 2604:2000:F22D:5100:C931:7A81:2BCD:F5B (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The undoing of the deletion has been undone. In other words, I deleted it again. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Having looked into it this is probably notable enough to include, though the character named is probably a poor example of it. Films like Gravity or Terminator 2 would be better examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly as notable as the sexy lamp test already mentioned on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel like hunting it up, but I'd vote for adding it back, too. Though I agree that the character it's named after isn't actually a good example of a "pass" for that test  Tamtrible (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Confusion with "real" tests?
The Bechdel test originated as a joke and is often used as a "un-scientific" way of demonstrating issues related gender bias. However, the preamble of the article (and mostly the rest of the article) do not indicate that the test is not a serious, scientific, statistically-sound method of assessing gender bias. I think it would be important to re-phrase the preamble as "The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ bek-dəl) is a satirical method to determine gender bias in fiction. It asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The requirement that the two women must be named is sometimes added." --SSneg (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Test" doesn't imply scientific rigor or any degree of soundness. It's just what it's called. "Satirical" would be misleading because, as the article shows, it is now widely used as a serious (if perhaps superficial) indicator for gender balance in fiction.  Sandstein   12:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Women/Men" vs "female/male" or other variants
Rather than having an edit war over this, let's discuss the matter here. I think http://bechdeltest.com/ is a reasonable source for "how people use the test". Some movies with a "pass" that doesn't involve adult human females talking to each other about something besides adult human males: Zootopia, The Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, the recent Annie, Guardians of the Galaxy (there is controversy, but only about whether the conversation involves male characters, not whether they count because they're not human), the Lego Movie, Maleficent, Rio 2, and Wreck-it Ralph And fails where the conversational subject that made the conversation a fail wasn't an adult human male: the second Spongebob movie (probably), and Ender's Game

I think it's tolerably clear that the way people actually use the test, a conversation between, say, 2 girls, or 2 female-identified aliens, counts, and a conversation that references, say, a boy, or a talking nonhuman male, doesn't. I think having a nonsentient male (eg an animal) as a topic doesn't negate a pass, but any male that meaningfully counts as a character does.

So, I think it's reasonable to make the page reflect this, at least in passing, somewhere. Tamtrible (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There are certainly occurrences of the test being used in a way that includes female or male characters of any age or species, but we'd need more than our own observations or self-published content (Internet forums or blog posts, including on bechdeltest.com which is user-edited) to cover this; see WP:SPS. Otherwise we'd be engaging in WP:OR. If this is a significant aspect of the test, a reliable source (see WP:RS) somewhere will have covered it. If that is the case, we can mention it, but probably not in the lead because it's rather minor issue.  Sandstein   12:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Critisism by a male statistician, and a male statistician has problems, the first of which is that it's made by men. Both of whom don't seem to understand the test, probably because it was not meant to be a scientific hypothesis, rather, it was a joke, that just happens to ring true more often than not. The third item of criticism is one that describes the subjectivity of such a test (derriiving meaning from dialogue, said by made up characters, and in context, isn't the primary thesis of the woman who wrote it. Rather, she points out that this as an exception to a dominant trend. Posimosh (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In general, Wikipedia chooses sources based on their reliability (WP:RS) rather than on the gender of their authors. Do you propose any specific changes?  Sandstein   11:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bechdel test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150502093329/http://comicsalliance.com/kelly-sue-deconnick-captain-marvel/ to http://comicsalliance.com/kelly-sue-deconnick-captain-marvel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we come up with some phrasing and/or placement of this that will actually stick?
People keep adding, and other people keep removing, references to the idea that the "women" (and, for that matter, "men") referred to in the test don't necessarily have to be adult female (/male) humans, but can be, well, any identifiably female (or male) characters. Aliens, children, talking animals, whatever.

Edit wars are annoying. Can we come up with a phrasing of the concept, and a placement for same, that the people who keep removing it won't remove?

(if you want proof that this is how people tend to actually use the test: just from a quick skim of the Bechdel Test Movie List: http://bechdeltest.com/view/7595/guardians_of_the_galaxy_vol._2 passes from assorted aliens, http://bechdeltest.com/view/6964/the_bfg/ passes from conversations that involve a little girl, http://bechdeltest.com/view/6932/finding_dory/ involves conversations between *fish*, http://bechdeltest.com/view/6808/kung_fu_panda_3/ has various talking animals, http://bechdeltest.com/view/6963/the_secret_life_of_pets/ doesn't pass because the conversations between 2 females are about a male dog, http://bechdeltest.com/view/7237/trolls/ passes because of conversations between trolls, http://bechdeltest.com/view/6741/zootopia/ has more talking animals... need I go on?)   Tamtrible (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, the problem is that we need reliable sources for such an addition, see WP:V. Bechdel herself and the other cited sources talk only about women, not girls, females, etc. The bechdeltest.com results are doubly inappropriate: they are individual examples and generalizing from them is original research; and the site itself is user-edited and therefore not a reliable source.  Sandstein   22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Um... what kind of "reliable sources" for *how people use something* are there going to be besides, well, examples of people using the thing that way?... Tamtrible (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We describe reliable sources at WP:RS. What we need is secondary sources, not primary sources (as usage examples are). An example for a good source would be an academic paper or a reputable mainstream media article reporting that this is how the Bechdel test is also applied.  Sandstein   07:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)