Talk:Gender pay gap/Archive 1

The Gender pay gap is a myth
Are we gonna include studies that show aggregate observations between the wages in men and women don't take into account the fact that women typically go into lower paying industries (teaching), among other factors? It's like saying Mexicans make less than white men, we must make a law because its due to discrimination rather than, you know, lower wage industries. There's been plenty of studies that show the gap has been exaggerated and due to legitimate reasons other than guys hate women. Part of it is also due to men working longer hours, taking less breaks, and not having to deal with child birth, which cuts into the time spent working. 74.108.217.11 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

When even height and hand dominance correlate with earning power, claiming that gender doesn't speaks more to one's own assumptions than logical extrapolation of evidence. 98.162.150.124 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Gender Pay Gap Across Industries
It may make sense to see where the gender pay gap is most prevalent, in an industry-specific sense. I was able to find articles that show that when education, experience, age and marital status still remain the same for men and women in the technical field, a woman is still likely to earn only 80 percent of what a male earns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandeep110 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I did a major overhaul of this, mainly because it was pretty factually incorrect, contained personal deductions. What it needs now is to go indepth explaining of the topic, Made some major edits to clean up the beginning and change how some of the data was presented in misleading ways.Sixtylarge2000 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why it occurs (social disadvantages).
 * Ways used to mitigate it.
 * Past examples of efforts taken around the world.

--sansvoix 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Gender Gap into this
Now that gender gap refers to socio-economic factors, it probabaly should be moved here (considering they both are small articles).--sansvoix 03:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me.--Bkwillwm 05:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Country Specific
Why so much emphasis on Malaysia?-- George


 * I agree. The information is good, but would be better in the Economy of Malaysia article, with just a link here, if absolutely required. --122.162.58.13 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree, Malaysia is great and all, but what about Borneo, the People's Democratic republic of Congo and Liechtenstein? These global powerhouses are currently left out of this articles, despite thier prominence on the World Stage. Why not include the countries most people actually care about? 144.82.106.54 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that 100% of the material on Muslim countries is irrelevant to the article? The article is about gender wage discrepancy. That section discusses "absolute value" of women's wages in Muslim countries. But, the article is not about absolute value of women's wages but the discrepancy/equality of women's wages relative to men's wages. I suggest removing it all until someone posts relevant data. But, I want to put it up here in the talk first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.179.240 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarify Chart
Chart is for Manufacturing not wages in general, someone needs to fix that. --64.231.161.251 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Gender Gap
This article is only about income disparity as it relates to gender. It should be titled accordingly. Title suggestions: 172.131.186.156 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gender income disparity
 * Income inequality between gender
 * Male–female income disparity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.186.156 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia?
Why is there a special subsection for Australia which only contains a link to a page that doesn't exist?

I'm removing it.

gzur (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
moved.--rgpk (comment) 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The income disparities between women and men are usually known as gender pay gap or gender wage gap. The European Commission uses gender pay gap and so does the United States goverment, the UK government  and the Australian government. The OECD, on the other hand, says gender wage gap. "Income gender gap" has 59 hits on google scholar whereas "gender pay gap" has about 6,170  and "gender wage gap" 9,650  hits on google scholar. I would like to put this to a vote. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (updated sources on April 24, 2011 --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Support. Change to Gender Pay Gap. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support change to "Gender Pay Gap" per your sources and also because it makes more sense than "income gender gap". --Aronoel (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaced 2004 UN stats with 2008 OECD report
I thought it was a much needed update, particularly because the UN stats were all about manufacturing. Also the OECD report offers explanations for the wage gap which the UN stats do not.

If anyone wants to reinsert the UN stats alongside the OECD report, go ahead. Perhaps it's a good idea to have the OECD report and the UN stats.

Also: Could anyone maybe try to find a better illustration than that drab gray table? Thanks! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No global perspecitve
Where are the developing countries? This replacement of UN statistics by OECD statistics made the article less global. If it stays in this form, it should be renamed Gender pay gap in industrialized countries or "Gender pay in the western world".

Any suggestions for useful UN statistics, or literature with global perspective? This might be an example. Mange01 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mange01, the UN statistics were restricted to one industry/occupation, manufacturing, and therefore unacceptable for this article. Moreover, they were outdated. So instead of renaming the article Gender pay gap in manufacturing, I did the only thing that made sense: Include OECD and Eurostat statistics that cover all occupations and industries.
 * Updated UN statistics would be great in Gender pay gap by industry and occupation, but we don't have such an article yet.
 * For the gender pay gap in "developing economies" see for instance: Arabsheibani 2000, Garcia-Aracil and Winter 2006, Grün 2004, Hossain and Tisdell 2005, Liu 2004...
 * Or look here. However, the source relies on older Eurostat data for Europe and older (sometimes as old as 2001) data from the International Labour Organization, the Australian Bureau of Statistics et al. This means that if we include all data from the report, we will replace 2008 statistics with 2001-2006 stats for some countries. Therefore I suggest, we only use stats for the countries that aren't already covered by Eurostat or the OECD. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing: If you okay the ITUC stats, please consider the type of graph or table you want to use for so much information. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of new section
People who know a few things about wage decompositions and are familiar with basic concepts like multiple regressions and Oaxaca-Blinder may not need an introductory section about what it means when the European Commission, for instance, states: "In the European Union, women earn on average 17.5% less than men." But I think that a person who has no experience with pay gap statistics might find it difficult to understand what "explained/unexplained part of the pay gap" or things like that mean. There are of course, many different approaches to adjust the pay gap and all of them have their methodological problems, but I don't think that this is the right place to describe them. Therefore, I only included the common explanation of the difference between the unadjusted/unadjusted pay gap and one major methodological drawback which is that the adjusted pay gap is not always a perfect measure of discrimination. So I added this section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a good step ahead. However, now the article stresses the importance between the adjusted and the adjusted pay gap, yet shows several figures without mentioning which they are! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.55.183 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

USA
Cut from this section:


 * In 2009, David R. Hekman and colleagues found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women. Hekman et al. found that customers who viewed videos featuring a female and a male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance. This despite that the actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in exactly the same location with identical camera angles and lighting. Moreover, 38% of the customers were women, indicating that even women and minority raters are susceptible to systematic gender biases. In a second study, they found that male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally-well performing female doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that customer ratings tend to be inconsistent with objective indicators of performance and should not be uncritically used to determine pay and promotion opportunities. They contend that in addition to addressing factors that cause bias in customer ratings, organizations should take steps to minimize the potential adverse impact of customer biases on female employees’ careers.(ref>David R. Hekman, Karl Aquino, Brad P. Owens, Terence R. Mitchell, Pauline Schilpzand & Keith Laevitt (2009). An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 238-264. (ref>Bakalar, Nicholas. Perceptions: A Customer Bias in Favor of White Men. New York Times, June 23, 2009, page D6. (ref>Vedantam, Shankar. Caveat for Employers. Washington Post, June 1, 2009, page A8. (ref>Jackson, Derrick. Subtle, and stubborn, race bias. Boston Globe, July 6, 2009, page A10. (ref>National Public Radio. ''Lake Effect: Customer Satisfaction Based on Race & Gender‘‘. July 7, 2009.

The above paragraph does not summarize the contents of Male–female income disparity in the United States, and while it might be a good insight in itself, really belongs in the 'main' article. Let's have a short summary, of the main article here, which would be (I believe) in accordance with policy on Wikipedia:Summary style. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Economist John Goodman on the Subject
‎"The reason economists have trouble with the idea of rampant [gender] pay discrimination is that it defies common sense. Let's say I own a company and I am employing only men. Is it really true that I could fire all the men, replace them with women and lower my cost of labor by 23%? If I could do that why wouldn't I? If I were stupid enough not to do it, wouldn't a competitor of mine do it and drive me out of business?"

"In other words, if workers received substantially different pay for doing the same job, an employer would have to be leaving a lot of money on the table by not hiring the lower-paid employees. (Remember, most people who believe in pay discrimination also believe most CEOs are selfish, money-grubbing sorts as well.) And it can't just be one employer. In order for pay differentials to persist in entire industries, every employer in the market must be willing to discriminate — including the firms run by women!"

~John Goodman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.73.216 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Gender wage gap in Russia Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)
I am planing to write a new article on the gender wage gap in Russia. I believe that it is advisable to pay special attention to the case of Russia (and maybe other post Soviet republics) if one wants to understand in more depth the reasons for the emergence of wage gaps and apply correct policies for its eradication. Why Russia?
 * Justification: Even though the education achievements of women in Russia are higher then those of men and their participation in the labor market is roughly equal to the male participation, the wage gap in this country is persistent and substantial. Russia’s case therefore becomes of particular interest as it preaches that policies which target only an increase in women's level of education and their participation in the labor market might not be very helpful in decreasing the gender wage gap if not accompanied by more activist policies; policies which would fight against the stereotypes of the male/female division of labor and the discriminatory practices employed at the work place as well as within the family.

A very rough outline of the planned content is as follows:
 * Section 1: short description of the concept of the wage gap
 * Section 2: the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition of the wage gap
 * Section 3: Evolution of the wage gap in Russia
 * Section 4: analysis of the wage gap in Russia according to the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition.
 * Section 5: Russia’s official’s position in regard to the wage gap

Any comments or suggestions would be very welcome. Thank you.

Corinabesliu1965 (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Corina Besliu

Implicit discrimination and lifestyle choices
The introduction to this article reads: "There is a debate to what extent this is the result of gender differences, implicit discrimination due to lifestyle choices [...]". However, it does not become clear why different lifesytle choices constitute implicit discrimination. This should either be plausibly explained or omitted. --67.165.219.73 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Wage inequality/Wage equality
Should those terms redirect here, too? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed an unsupported line from the lede
I removed the following line from the lede, as it did not appear to be supported in any way by the reference that came with it:

Furthermore, studies show that even when experience, education, marital status and industries remain the same, men still get paid significantly more

The cited article, the CONSAD report, appears to conclude the exact opposite.

Page 2: The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

Page 15: Nevertheless, it can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors [already identified] account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap

Certainly I cannot see any justification in the report for the sentence that was in the lede. I have removed it accordingly. If someone is able to back it up with a source, feel free to re-add.

almightybob (pray) 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

full rewrite, stage 1: verification of citations

 * At the moment that I'm writing this, I see 53 ref links (tho some are linked to more than once). The first stage of a full rewrite is to verify that every citation actually contains the assertion that Wikipedia alleges it contains. I will do this, tho it may take a while, because I don't really have large blocks of contiguous free time. Any and all cites that do not contain the purported assertions will be removed immediately. Please do note that I will not always read the full text of every source, but will instead search for (CTRL-F) a number of related keywords. It is possible that I may make a mistake. If I do, please do not assume bad faith. If you point out any errors that I may make, I will restore the relevant text immediately. Also, I plan to use exactly the same edit summary every time, to make these edits particularly easy to spot. I was thinking rm assertion not supported by src, but if you have a better suggestion, please do let me know. Next, I realize that sometimes the ref might have been valid when originally inserted, but someone may have stuck some dodgy text in between the (originally valid) citeref and valid text. So I will try to backtrack a few sentences whenever I find a bad cite, to see if the cite can be retained next to valid text. And finally, I probably won't be working in a straight line from cite 1 to cite 53, merely because that's a little tedious. But I will check every cite. Thank you for your patience. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 09:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: sometimes removing the text causes problems, so sometimes I'll use Failed verification &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 07:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources held list

 * I am just now beginning to gather sources. While we're working on this (which for me at least may be weeks if not months), I will keep a list of fulltext sources that I acquire at: User:ArchReader/gendergap. Tks. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 10:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

removed entire section: "Effect of socialization on gender pay-gaps"

 * I removed the entire section; you can read it in article history. The section cited one statistic saying that differences in career paths between men and women account for 53% of the wage gap, but then it places that factoid within the frame of an unverified POV assertion (even in the heading of the section) that these career differences are due to the disempowering effects of society upon women. That ignores the possibility that women consciously trade lower-paying jobs for ones with a better working environment, etc. This section can be completely rewritten with a POV-neutral heading, and far better statistics, but in its current state it neither makes the case nor remains neutral. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 13:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it cited two peer-reviewed academic papers and tied them together - and I'm not seeing what's POV about the heading. Could you explain that bit? You removed a chunk of the article actually far better referenced than a large portion of the rest. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"please listen. Please think." please don't patronize your fellow editors. Also I'm 100% certain that the two cites we're discussing do not constitute the whole universe of work on compensating differentials. Jeez. Protonk (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It cites one little stat that says that women receive different pay regardless of similar qualifications, and another which states that the wage gap is related to job selection. Well OK, those can be kept, but they are apples and oranges (qualifications vs. job selection), and belong in different sections. Even more, the WHOLE SECTION is POV because it explicitly attributes job choices to nebulous, disempowering forces of society. Bullfeathers. Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force. The higher-paying jobs that males predominantly take are *unpleasant* and often even *dangerous* ones (e.g., coal miner). Women self-select careers that have better working conditions but lower pay. The heading is POV because it very explicitly attributes job selection to those mysterious disempowering social forces. The section quotes two disparate stats that belong in different sections, then assumes an editorial voice and shoves a POV-laden  narrative that "explains" those two stats down the reader's throat, when other explanations are far more reasonable. The entire section is explicitly situated within this narrative., please put on your thinking cap. The two different stats belong in different sections of any reasonable organization scheme, and the "social forces" narrative belongs in some section that explicitly labels it as speculation rather than fact. When the heading of the section and the text below it explicitly  select one speculative narrative over others, Wikipedia is takng on an editorial voice. Do you want Wikipedia to assume an editorial voice? If so, please get a job with a partisan online source. If not, please self-revert and rewrite the whole darn article. , &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even more, the WHOLE SECTION is POV because it explicitly attributes job choices to nebulous, disempowering forces of society. Bullfeathers. Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force. The higher-paying jobs that males predominantly take are *unpleasant* and often even *dangerous* ones (e.g., coal miner). Women self-select careers that have better working conditions but lower pay. you've provided absolutely no citations for this and it appears to be your personal opinion - your personal opinion, that you're using to justify editorial choices and the removal of content actually referenced to reliable, third-party sources, of which neither of us are. You seem to be desiring an editorial voice for Wikipedia yourself, simply one that disagrees with the content of the article.
 * If you can give examples of how you would like the article rearranged, based on reliable sources, I am happy to add to them and include them (with consensus!) in the article once everyone here finds them satisfying. But if you wish to rearrange the article based on your own anecdotal evidence of the causes of the gender pay gap and the lived experiences of men and women, well, that's, as you would say, bullfeathers. Ironholds (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are favoring one anecdotal account over another. That is POV in its purest form. I want to rewrite the entire article, top to bottom, to reflect what is actually stated in statistically valid sources. I want to explicitly state that opinions are opinions, wherever opinions are given. And yes, that stuff about society forcing or pressuring (or whatever verb you want to use) women to choose certain fields is 100% unadulterated worldview-based narrative. Also known as Opinion.. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are peer-reviewed journal articles anecdotal accounts to you? If you mean you don't recognise qualitative research as valid research, well, that's your problem to take up with...pretty much every academic field. Ironholds (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , please listen. Please think. That section contains three and only three elements. Please think about what the content actually is. So we have: 1) a cite that says that women get differing pay even when they have the same qualifications. That is a complicated topic that deserves an entire dedicated section rather than a drive-by lone cite, and just lobbing one cite at it is genuinely simplistic, but OK, it's a cite, and we can accept it for now. [I haven't even verified it yet, but for the moment I gladly assume it's a valid cite.]. Then second we have 2) a cite that says that 53% of the pay gap is due to the different fields that men and women are employed in. OK. We have 2 cites. We are assuming those two cites are fully and absolutely valid. Now, what is the third thing we have? We have some Wikipedia editor attempting to draw out a narrative that connects two unconnected cites, taking on an editorial voice and "explaining" those cites by framing them within his or her worldview. It's one Wikipedian standing on a soapbox and informing the entire world the what two completely unrelated cites "Really Mean", and "Real Truth" of what what "Really Causes" the factoids behind those two cites, according to that Wikipedian's personal view of things. That is all we have. Two unrelated factoids and a rather sweeping soapbox. Why is that impossible for you to see?&bull; Arch&diams;Reader 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Protonk; fully agreed. ArchReader, your attitude and behaviour here are both problematic: please try to take a more constructive attitude. On the rework of the article, I fully support a rework - I'm somewhat confused as to why the starting point is checking cited elements rather than removing totally uncited elements, though. Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This post is very, very long, but it is necessarily long because the arguments require close and extended examination. Please do not insult me by personal attacks, saying tldr/condescending/patronizing etc. If you don't wanna read, then you vastly reduce the value of your input to this phase of the discussion... OK then…. The "socialization" section was originally such a beautiful & classic example of WP:Coatrack that – really – someone should copy/paste the version in recent article history to the WP:Coatrack essay, as an illustrative case. Now, before I discuss the current text, please allow me to suggest that we define "socialization" in the relevant section. A source that Protonk seems to have added (Reskin 1993) states: "Both the socialization and neoclassical-economic perspectives on segregation contend that workers' occupational outcomes reflect their preferences. Socialization theories emphasize the different preferences the sexes develop before reaching adulthood..." So "socialization" means that women self-select stereotypically "feminine" careers, but the decision reflects preferences formed during young, formative years.. This definition is useful for the discussion, and later assertions need to be worded carefully to fit within that definition (or deleted if they cannot fit under it)... OK, the current text, as amended by Protonk after my extended complaints, is still quite problematic. It currently has 5 sentences. The first sentences provides a topic, with cites. That's kind of OK in so far as it goes (tho I will check the cites later, and tho I think it's still not unpacked enough.. but OK for now). The second sentence –, if you want to delete unsupported sentences, this one sticks out like ten sore thumbs. Its assertions are sweeping and unsupported.  The third sentence, recently added by Protonk, adds a new thicket of factoids but provides little light to the reader. In fact, it seems both self-contradictory and unsupported by the source.  Work with me here: the first half says "Job choices influenced by socialization are often slotted in to 'demand-side' decisions in frameworks of wage discrimination." It's sourced to Reskin, and it's true that Reskin discusses demand-side decisions (among other things), but I can't see where this source claims that demand-side decisions are held to be more prevalent in determining presumed inequality (and may I presume that "often slotted into" means "often described as being"?). Even worse, the source defines "demand-side" as including "employers' preferences, the demand for workers, economic pressures, discrimination, and personnel practices". Note the absence of the word "socialization" among demand-side issues. But the source describes "supply-side explanations" as including "the size of the labor supply, the neoclassical human-capital explanation, gender-role socialization [my emphasis], workers' values, and the opportunity structure..." So the source defines socialization as a supply side explanation, while the Wikipedia article's section about socialization makes the (unsupported?) claim that Reskin says "demand-side" considerations are (more?) often discussed.  That doesn't seem to make sense; in a section about socialization, you should be trying to establish that supply-side explanations (including socialization) are powerful explanatory factors… so what we have so far is that 1) the source doesn't seem to claim what Protonk claims it claims, or if it does so, then it does so only in passing, and 2) Protonk's claim undermines the section's argument rather than supporting it, anyhow. Moving on, the second half of that sentence says "… rather than as a result of extant labor market discrimination influencing job choice". What does that mean, and how should we connect it to the first half? It seems to mean that the market – the demand-side – acts in ways that influence the employees – the supply side --- to make decisions that segregate themselves by gender. Well, socialization is self-segregation (but presumably it is "bad" in the sense that it is a result of "brainwashing", forgive my loose terminology, though I actually can't find where reskin makes that particular assertion). So the whole sentence say… maybe it says…  "Job choices influenced by [supply-side] socialization are often described as being a result of demand-side considerations… rather than demand-side considerations affecting supply-side decisions." To me at least it sounds like multiple layers of self-contradiction. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. Continuing on, we have: "Nonetheless, women continue to do well in higher education when compared to men. Yet studies show the existence of a pay gap even when a woman and man hold the same degree and same experience level." Would anyone like to explain to me what on earth this assertion has to do with the.. socially-impelled self-selection that reflects attitudes formed during youth...? Thanks for your patience. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 07:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to forgive your loose terminology. If you're going to huff and puff about how I have to read the above carefully otherwise I'll "vastly reduce the value of [my] input to this phase of the discussion" then you can learn the correct fucking terminology and acquaint yourself with the sources on the subject. Protonk (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My Reskin addition was sloppy, I'll fix that. You'll want to read 260-263 for some detail (and other sources) on the role of socialization specifically. Protonk (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ArchReader, if you genuinely don't see why your attitude or behaviour here is a problem, then this is likely to end badly. You've come in and stated that the article is a hot mess; that's not a problem. The problem is that the attitude you're taking is patronising and it's not a personal attack to point that out. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comment immediately above is more or less identical in meaning to a comment you made in another forum here, so I refer you to my reply on that same forum, here. Sorry for the inconvenience. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 01:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Protonk, my "loose terminology' is that I was being casual when I said "brainwashed". No need to reach for the f-bombs. Thank you for telling me that I need to read more about the topic. I already know this. My plan for this page is a very, very long term plan ("eventualist"). I plan to learn quite a bit as I go. I have never pretended to have any knowledge in this area at all. However, what I do have knowledge about is writing. This article is... I'm concerned that any description that really captures the level of inadequacy present here would be construed as a personal attack on its various editors. To call it "sloppy" would be an act of kindness. I'm not saying this to score points in some personal quarrel with you or anyone else. I'm saying it because it is simply and flatly true. But this is not the end of the world. We have the technology. We can rebuild it. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 13:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be concerned about offending you when this "Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force. The higher-paying jobs that males predominantly take are *unpleasant* and often even *dangerous* ones (e.g., coal miner). Women self-select careers that have better working conditions but lower pay. The heading is POV because it very explicitly attributes job selection to those mysterious disempowering social forces." is already on the table. If your prior is to treat long and widely documented socialization problems as fairy tales using a pretty selective reading of compensating differentials, then I'd consider you to think deeply about whether or not that is some commonly held "truth". If you'd like I can offer some systematic or narrative reviews in the literature outlining different models for thinking about the wage gap as well as empirical support for them. This is not some fanciful semiotic jaunt through a late 20th century poem. Economists, sociologists, demographers and anthropologists have been studying the changing gender makeup of the labor force (worldwide, but in US/Canada/UK/Germany more than others) as well as the pay gap since before world war II. Much of that research goes into the inputs to the labor force, the sociological or economic reasons why women might choose a specific job, career path or education. That specific branch still has hundreds of papers from sociologists and economists. This is not new ground and it is not some abstract concept. Protonk (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As an example of this, let's take a look at women on submarines. In the US they basically couldn't be assigned to submarines until 2013, and then only in specific boats (newer ones). Let's fast forward 10 years. Submariners are still likely to be disproportionately male, despite personnel officers and recruiters desperately looking for women interested in submarines. Let's also imagine, because we're being charitable, that everyone along the chain to get to the fleet is really excited about a women going through the pipeline. They wouldn't be the first (we've already seen them), but let's pretend that the military suddenly becomes pretty welcoming of women in this avenue. What about the women who choose to do it? Some of them will get captivated at an early age by some image and will immediately self-select, just like men did prior to 2013. But how might that happen? None of the movies they see about submarines will have women in them in any significant way. Das Boot, Hunt for Red October, Crimson Tide. All men. Those movies recruited so many fucking submariners on their own but a girl or woman watching them doesn't have anyone to relate to of the same gender. Even if they do relate to a man--and let's be fucking real they've basically had to forever--they're being sent a pretty clear signal that girls weren't allowed. But she presses on and when she's nearing the end of high school or college she talks to a recruiter. Lots of times recruiters will sell specific jobs (usually those with a performance bonus attached) based on personal experience or bring in someone who can. If this woman wanted to speak to a stateside submariner, the person would most likely be male. Ditto for the instructors at her school(s). 10 years after integration and all the senior people in the training commands are still men, because anyone with 10+ years in is male and nearly all of the remainder are male as well (sheer numbers plays a role). If they make it through, the command structure at sea will be largely male for some time (for the same reasons). You'll maybe see one female submarine XO by 2023, maybe. Out of dozens of boats. Same with senior enlisted. That's the best case scenario. None of the actual discrimination we know exists in the service and none of the exclusionary boys club attitude that has been part of the submarine force for decades. Best case scenario and navigating that as a woman is a pretty lonely road. By the by, those submariners? They make more money on average than the rest of the fleet, they get promotions faster (across most rates) and they get to live in base housing earlier. Someone who chooses another job in the navy (save pilots or specops, two other notable boys clubs) will make less money and we will report it as them self-selecting out of a more arduous job that pays more. Protonk (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above is just a hypothetical with a formerly sex-segregated, higher paying industry. Plenty of jobs have paths to them where socialization is crucial even for pointing already motivated people the right direction. That's not even throwing out larger, documented problems with socialization in determining outcomes. Like I said, best case scenario. None of these mechanisms are magical or brainwashing in any conceivable way. They're studied (empirically, qualitatively and in the lab) and the results that are robust are pretty non-trivial. They also (thankfully) mostly fit with the more common models of discrimination. Socialization can co-exist as a barrier to equal pay with other forms of discrimination. In some places their pronouncements conflict depending on the authors you choose, but that's where narrative literature reviews and work in academic handbooks and monographs is really helpful. People have spent a lot of time writing about this. The sources are out there. Protonk (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that the genesis of this discussion, and an ongoing theme, is that I have created a misperception that I am militating in favor of one POV over another (that is, in favor of one explantion over another). That perception arose because I deleted an entire section about socialization, and basically said it was bullshit. Now, please let me correct the misperception: I am not saying that the socialization explanation is bullshit. I am saying the the section as it exited was both WP:Coatrack and WP:POV. I am saying that the section of Wikipedia text, as it was written, was complete and utter shambolic bollocks. Now, if we create a very well-written section about scoialization, which carefully defines and qualifies all its important terms, and carefully and prominently states that this is only of possible explanation, then that section would meet with my applause and strong approval. I am not about striking down one POV; I am about identifying POVs as POVs and explaining them very, very, very, very, very carefully. Does that make more sense? &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 07:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so your statement "Job choice is not dictated by some dark, sinister disempowering force." was just talking about the prose of our wikipedia page! And I presume the heading you're referring to here ("The heading is POV because it very explicitly attributes job selection to those mysterious disempowering social forces.") is Effect of socialization on gender pay-gaps? That sounds pretty totalizing. None of that is about a prior position on the wage gap? Look, we all come to the table with priors. The goal here is to work together to write a resource that is useful, clear and neutral. I'm perfectly willing to do that. But this true neutral editor schtick has got to stop. It's tiresome. First off, if you go around shouting at other editors about how neutral you are, how many people do you think that convinces? Do you think after you've said "I am about identifying POVs as POVs and explaining them very, very, very, very, very carefully" my first thought it "wow, this guy is really careful and neutral, I better respect what he has to say"? How about you write very carefully and edit very carefully and let other editors make their own determinations of your neutrality. Because to do otherwise is to waste everyone's time. Protonk (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed that I have stopped editing the page, except for moving a couple sentences (unchanged). I did that (as opposed to editing the article) specifically because others obviously disagree with (reverted!) my edits, and Talk is where things are hammered out. I am sorry if this has wasted your time. I will happily edit the page, but it will take a long time and a lot of reading even to get cranked up & going. Forex, I think a very early section should discuss different measures of the gap (units, I mean: raw weekly, etc.), and discuss how selecting a unit of measurement impacts the end result.  The lede's assertion that "The European Commission defines it as the average difference between men’s and women’s hourly earnings" may be literally quite true, but it is very misleading, because it omits a discussion of the fact that different sources use different measures, and comparing their results is apples and oranges. Then I wonder if the whole structure of the article could be reworked. The "possible explanation" sections could follow Reskin's description of demand/supply and her list of those, with a discussion of each. This seems logical and orderly.  There needs to be a discussion of this topic's status as a political football, etc. There needs to be a more global view.  And many of the sources are stale, either broken, or just old and outdated. And on and on. If you will let me edit, I will try, but it is a massive undertaking, and intermediate edits will be inadequate etc. So I can work in userspace – yours or mine – but the problem with that is that other editors will change things here in the interim. Or I can work here, but I think it needs several new sections, so it will be a bit chaotic. Or I suppose I could write in userspace but do it section by section, then import one section at a time when it is finished. And so on.  So then. Feel free to judge me by my edits. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 11:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or we could just work on it at TalK:Gender pay gap/sandbox . Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My vague memory from many years ago is that it is somehow or other against some rule somewhere to put sandboxes in mainspace (article space). &bull; Arch&diams;Reader
 * Ditto, hence the suggestion for Talk:Gender pay gap/* instead of Gender pay gap/*. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Page created at Talk:Gender pay gap/sandbox &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 11:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

request consensus: modify referencing to include notes section, for page numbers

 * It would be a long time before I actually change the existing article page, but while I am working on a rewrite, I would like consensus to start from scratch with a referencing system that I believe supplies more specific information to the reader. The example I have in mind is the system used in Funerary art: the &lt;ref&gt; tags are used to place page numbers and occasionally comments in a Notes section (see WP:CITESHORT), and full references are written out just below that in a References section.&bull; Arch&diams;Reader 11:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems totally fine by me; I tend to use "References" for page-level entries and "Bibliography" for the works, but naming conventions around this are fuzzy for good reason. Comments I think we should shy away from unless they're supported by references. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How calculated
The article could use some background information on how earnings are calculated. In the "Weekly Earnings" time series chart, for instance, do women earn less because their hourly rate is lower, or is it because they work fewer hours each week, or both? The reader can't tell by looking at the chart, but will have to consult another chart or table that gives hours worked per week by gender. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems uncomfortable with compensation issues and attendant inequalities, approaching data collection in a scattershot manner that omits significant information. In the USA, fringe benefits are a major part of a worker's compensation; weekly earnings tables do not reflect benefits such as health insurance, vacation time, or employer contributions to retirement accounts. Nor are the effects of taxes. If these were included, the gap could be either smaller or larger. I did notice that some notes and references are embedded in the chart's media page. Weekly earnings come from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, and (I believe) are reported by householders themselves. A section on these considerations will be difficult to write, however, as it really calls for someone who knows this subject professionally. Jessegalebaker (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is vague, imprecise, confusing, potentially misleading, etc. from top to bottom, as its sister articles are as well. Needs top to bottom rewrite. I have it on my to do list, but alas it's way down near the bottom of that list. Thanks for the input tho; it's helpful. &bull; Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

uncited line in intro contradicts graph
"While in the United States, the gender pay gap has increased for younger women and decreased for older women, in the UK the opposite is taking place. In both countries, however, the pay gap is greater for older women than younger women"

The graph(figure 2) on this page shows that the gap has decreased on all counts. At least be consistent. 98.127.197.107 (talk)
 * this one? No it doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism" section proposal
I understand that this is a contentious topic, but I thought I might as well propose a "Criticism" section for the article. This criticism section was primarily made to showcase criticisms of gender pay gap statistics, in particular those in the United States. If you have any suggestions about how to improve this proposal, such as adding more sources or perspectives, please do let me know. I tried to keep it short in relation to the rest of the article, however, since I don't want to give undue weight, especially when the majority of credible criticisms I found were about the "77–78¢ on every man's dollar" claim in specific as an inaccurate and poor representation of the gender pay gap in the United States.

If you, alternatively, believe that this section should not be included and/or that this specific proposal should be scrapped, feel free to voice your opinion below. I am alright with scrapping this work if there is consensus that it's not worth adding.

There have been criticisms of the gender pay gap in the United States, in particular regarding the estimate that the average woman's earnings are approximately equivalent to 77–78% of the average man's. Most notably, equity feminist and philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers has repeatedly criticized the estimate, describing it as a "wage gap myth". According to Sommers, "when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing". She argues that "[t]he 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time", but that "[i]t does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women workers. When these factors are controlled, Sommers believes that "the wage gap narrows to about five cents", but that "no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers". Nevertheless, Sommers believes that it is "demeaning" to women to they imply "that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control", which she considers "divorced form reality".

Hanna Rosin of Slate argues that "the gender wage gap [that women make 77 cents to every man's dollar] is a lie", arguing that it is an inaccurate and "misleading statistic" which fails to grasp the complexity of the gender pay gap. In her article, she states that: "The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we've missed the actual challenges." According to Rosin, [i]t's the deeper, more systemic discrimination of inadequate family-leave policies and childcare options, of women defaulting to being the caretakers" that causes the gender pay gap.

In response to President Obama's "persistent '77-cent' claim on the wage gap", Glenn Kessler gave it "Two Pinocchios" on the Fact Checker blog at The Washington Post. Kessler states that while "[f]ew experts dispute that there is a wage gap", the "differences in the life choices of men and women—such as women tending to leave the workforce when they have children—make it difficult to make simple comparisons". In his opinion, he believes that President Obama "must begin to acknowledge that '77 cents' does not begin to capture what is actually happening in the work force and society".

Thanks for your consideration and apologies if this issue has already been discussed before; I was not able to find any discussion on a "Criticism" section in the archives. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe there is no section on criticism there to date. That is fundamentally misleading itself, and ethically & philosophically unsound: if there be truth, hold topics up to the sun for all to see (make them public/discussed), and it shall be found.
 * Then again, considering how bias and in a vacuum the narrative around the wage gap is in favor of it...perhaps, sadly, I should not be surprised? 2001:569:5351:D200:3C13:5D72:E636:9990 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Globalize
I've added a Globalize template as their is a distinct lack of information about the gender pay gap outside of North America and the EU. Virtually nothing is mentioned about countries in South America, Asia or Africa, which is a real shame. This would certainly be one way to improve the article so if anybody can help that'd be much appreciated. 80.193.25.91 (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources not supporting "40% of the salary gap can be largely attributed to sex discrimination" -statement of the 2nd paragraph.
There are 3 sources gives for the statement "These factors resolve around 60% of the pay gap, however the remaining 40% can largely be attributed to sex discrimination". However, none of the three given sources seem to state that.

The Conrad report states in its conclusions -section "Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent" and goes on to give some additional factors that haven't been taken into account which could have an effect on the gap. According to this source, the gap is 25-35% without taking into account some additional factors.

The second source only mentions discrimination briefly in the last paragraph and gives no figures to suggest the size of it.

The third source comes closest by stating "41% of the gender pay gap cannot be explained even when gender differences in education, experience, industries, occupations and union statuses are taken into account", but doesn't seem to take a stance on how much of that gap is based on discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.84.252 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Supply vs demand and wage compression
I think that the scholarly article 'Understanding International Differences in the Gender Pay Gap' should be included in the artcile. He concludes, that 'overall wage compression and low female supply relative to demand reduce a country’s gender pay gap.'

Here the abstract: "Using microdata for 22 countries over the 1985–94 period, we find that more compressed male wage structures and lower female net supply are both associated with a lower gender pay gap, with an especially large effect for wage structures. Reduced‐form specifications indicate that the extent of collective bargaining coverage is also significantly negatively related to the gender pay gap. Together, the wage compression and collective bargaining results suggest that the high wage floors that are associated with highly centralized, unionized wage setting raise women’s relative pay, since women are at the bottom of the wage distribution in each country."

Germany
I added Germany. It would be nice, if you could correct my English (in case of mistake/s). --Momo Monitor (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Overview" section
This seems like a redundant section with some POV language and uncited claims. Per WP:LEDE, shouldn't the lede be serving as an overview anyways? PearlSt82 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Overview Unclear and Missing Citations
The overview section of the article is unclear. It begins with the European Commission's definition of gender pay gap and offers statistics on the gap. The second paragraph then discusses the gap in the United States. As is, it is unclear whether the statistics in the first paragraph refer to Europe specifically, or whether they cover the United States. If it is Europe specifically, I would suggest adding an introduction paragraph before these two paragraphs. The lack of clarity may also be a product of the lack of citations. Medleya (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

FAIL
Once again, we are presented with Gender Income Gap being equivalent to Gender Pay Gap. Being paid for the same activity, doing the same job and having the same qualification level as a male, this is what thew PAY GAP is. The figure 0f 17-22% you see and hear all the time is based on the OVERALL INCOME of men and women. When women decide not to work the same jobs as men, when they work less hours, naturally they will be paid less and have a smaller I.N.C.O.M.E. The overall income doesn't say anything about the actual PAY, women receive for the same job, same activity and thesame amount of working hours. Sorry, but the income gap numbers sold as pay gap numbers are a huge pile of policitically correct BS. The article needs to be re-done. Gladifer (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, stopped paying attention when you used the phrase "politically correct" like it actually meant something.
 * Got any sources? Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * is correct, the article above consistently conflates two very different concepts, which are both called a 'Pay gap'. But one is the average of the pay of all women compared to all men across all jobs, (more accurately referred to as a 'gender income gap'), the other is the difference in pay between women and men that work the same jobs, for the same hours (which can be accurately called a 'pay gap').  InsertCleverPhraseHere  16:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wages, Earning, Pay, and Income
As I read through this article these words are used interchangeably. The blanket application of these terms results in a confusing, and sometimes incorrect portrayal of reality. My primary criticism is the use of the term "wages."

Wages: A regular payment, usually on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis, made by an employer to an employee...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wage.

By definition wage is dependent upon time. I argue that colloquial it is also dependent upon type of labor. ie) Terms like "wage scale" are dependent upon type of job. (a schedule of wages paid for different jobs) "Wage Parity" similarly is pendent upon both type of labor and hours.

"Wage" generally carries a more specific connotation that is interdependent with external factors. In spite of this, terms like "wage gap," and other uses of "wage" in this article, are used to describe an unadjusted mean that doesn't account for time or type of labor.

Here is an example in the introductory paragraph. "It is suggested that the wage gap is due to a variety of causes, such as ... differences in preferred job and industry, ... differences in the types of positions held by men and women, ... differences in the type of jobs men typically go into as opposed to women (especially highly paid high risk jobs), ... difference in length of work week, and breaks in employment."

The introductory paragraph states that the wage gap may be due to difference in job selected and time worked, though by definition wages includes type of job and time worked. "Earnings Gap" or "Pay Gap" would be more accurate and more easily understood. I may come back and speak to other specific instances, but for now I'm leaving this comment for active wikipedia editors to consider this.

Thank you for you consideration.


 * Can I suggest that we make a change in the terminology used throughout this article? 'Pay gap' is a very bad term due to it being consistently used in the media for two very different concepts. These two concepts can largely be referred to as the 'average income gap across all jobs' and the 'wage gap for the same work'. I suggest that we avoid using the term 'pay gap' in the article, except where it is referenced as a quote, and instead use the terms 'income gap' and 'wage gap' where appropriate. If there are no serious objections to this, i will begin copy editing the article tomorrow.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  16:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Baloch's comment on this article
Dr. Baloch has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Para 1, Sentence 1: European union use "gross hourly earning" NOT "aggregate hourly earning". Para 1: the statement "These factors resolve 60% to 75% of the pay gap, depending on the source. Various explanations for the remaining 25% to 40% have been suggested, including women's lower willingness and ability to negotiate salaries or else due to discrimination." is not for the world it seems only for the European Union. There is need to mention which region is referred here. Para 2: The first line of para 2 can be replaced be with some other reference. CNN reference may be too speculated and it is not coincide with empirical evidence. By country: At least one or an aggregate analysis from developing countries should be included. Economic Theories: Oaxaca (1973) and Cotton (1988) should be added."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Baloch has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Hyder, Asma, 2007. "Wage Differentials, Rate of Return toEducation, and Occupational WageShare in the Labour Market of Pakistan," MPRA Paper 2224, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Schnabel's comment on this article
Dr. Schnabel has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The distinction between the raw pay gap and the adjusted pay gap (not "revised" gap!) should be made clearer from the beginning.

The graphs and figures from OECD and Eurostat could be updated.

The section on economic theories is deficient, missing aspects like statistical discrimination and segregation. It could also be noted that there is some empirical evidence in favor of Becker's view of preference-based discrimination being weaker in competitive markets; see the paper by Hirsch et al. in IZA Journal of Labor Economics 2014."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Schnabel has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Hirsch, Boris & Oberfichtner, Michael & Schnabel, Claus, 2014. "The levelling effect of product market competition on gender wage discrimination," Discussion Papers 94, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Labour and Regional Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Balafoutas's comment on this article
Dr. Balafoutas has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Here is one more suggestion for a reference on the gender pay gap: Bertrand, M. and Hallock, K.F. (2001). “The gender gap in top corporate jobs”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 55, pp. 3-21.

I found the sections "Effect of job choice" and "Effect of socialization" not very informative, and I think they do not deal with the respective issues in sufficient depth. For instance, job choices are only discussed based on one study in Canada. I would even consider dropping those two sections since they do not add much to the broad picture.

Similarly, the section Economic Theories is also too short. Discrimination, for instance, is a huge topic with plenty of literature and it is dealt with very superficially. I would at least add and briefly discuss the following survey on more recent theories of discrimination and affirmative action: Theories of Statistical Discrimination and Affirmative Action: A Survey, by Hanming Fang and Andrea Moro. in Jess Benhabib, Matthew Jackson and Alberto Bisin editors: Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1A, Chapter 5, The Netherlands: North Holland, 2011, pp. 133-200."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Balafoutas has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Balafoutas, Loukas & Sutter, Matthias, 2010. "Gender, Competition and the Efficiency of Policy Intervention," Working Papers in Economics 450, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Dreber's comment on this article
Dr. Dreber has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"”The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiating skills and sexual discrimination.”

I would change ”deficiency in salary negotiating skills” to ”gender differences in negotiation behavior” and also add that studies suggest that women who negotiate are socially punished by in particular male evaluators (see, e.g., Bowles et al. 2007). I quote the abstract of Bowles et al: ” Four experiments show that gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be explained by differential treatment of men and women when they attempt to negotiate. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants evaluated written accounts of candidates who did or did not initiate negotiations for higher compensation. Evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations. In Experiment 3, participants evaluated videotapes of candidates who accepted compensation offers or initiated negotiations. Male evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations; female evaluators penalized all candidates for initiating negotiations. Perceptions of niceness and demandingness explained resistance to female negotiators. In Experiment 4, participants adopted the candidate’s perspective and assessed whether to initiate negotiations in same scenario used in Experiment 3. With male evaluators, women were less inclined than men to negotiate, and nervousness explained this effect. There was no gender difference when evaluator was female.”

” Another study showed more jobs for women when orchestras moved to blind auditions although, in normal orchestra interviews, women were preferentially chosen over men for some instruments, such as the flute.” The first part of the sentence appears to refer to Goldin and Rouse (2000) but I cannot see any discussion of e.g. the flute.

“A 2015 study showed that women were preferred by a factor of 2 for academic roles in STEM subjects.[53]” There is also a study from 2012 that basically finds the opposite, i.e. that women are discriminated against in STEM jobs (Moss-Racusin et al. 2012). I quote from the abstract of Moss-Racusin et al.: “In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent.”

References:

Bowles, Hannah Riley, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai. "Social Incentives for Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes It Does Hurt to Ask." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103.1 (May 2007): 84-103.

Goldin C, Rouse C. (2000) Orchestrating Impartiality: The Effect of 'Blind' Auditions on Female Musicians. American Economic Review 90(4): 715-741.

Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. (2012). “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.” PNAS 109 (41) 16474-16479;"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Dreber has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Boschini, Anne & Dreber, Anna & von Essen, Emma & Muren, Astri & Ranehill, Eva, 2014. "Gender and economic preferences in a large random sample," Research Papers in Economics 2014:6, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Gender pay gap. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131008051216/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf to http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131008051216/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf to http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206221033/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/57/40846335.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/57/40846335.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131008051216/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf to http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation in the "Anti-Discrimination legislation" Section
In the last sentence of this section there is a reference to a 2016 EEOC proposal, however there is no citation to support this. Are there any objections to adding a citation at this point? 64.189.41.146 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in, the question above is from me. AKAnthony (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Value Statements
In the "Criticism of the famous 77% number" section, there is usage of value words in the statement: "Most notably, equity feminist and philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers has repeatedly criticized the estimate, describing it as a 'wage gap myth'.[73][74][75]" I propose that "most notably" be removed to avoid any bias and stay consistent with an encyclopedic tone. Any comments to this type of revision? Cardinal0205 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems ok to me, though you would need to be careful not to just remove those words, as the meaning is then slightly distorted. It appears to me that that language is used to single Sommers out as being the most prominent voice, while removing "most notably" would make it read as they are a singular voice.  Arkon (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "most notably" should be removed still. Sommers's criticism is different in content than Rosin's or Kessler's critiques in the section. The wording is misleading to say that Sommers is more prominent than the other critics. Also, when searching for gender pay gap criticism in academic databases, Sommers isn't represented more than other critics. Cardinal0205 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Addition to the "Dominican Republic" Section
I propose adding the following new information to this section: "The Global Gender Gap ranking, found by compiling economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment scores, in 2009 was 67th out of 134 countries representing 90% of the globe, and its ranking has dropped to 86th out of 145 countries in 2015. " Cardinal0205 (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Gender Pay Gap Sources
Here are my sources for contributing to this page, specifically focusing on the by country section: "Gender Earnings Discrimination in Jordan: Good Intentions Are Not Enough," The Global Gender Gap Report 2009, "Gender Wage Gap and Earnings: Predicted by Tenure in the Czech Republic," "Sectoral Gender Wage Gap in Vietnam," “Gender and the Wage Gap in Turkish Academia,” "Gender Earning Gaps Around the World: A Study of 64 Countries," The Global Gender Gap Report 2015, and "Labor Market Outcomes for Women in East Asia." Does anyone have any recommendations? Cardinal0205 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations to Add
I am planning on adding the following citations:


 * Sandberg, Sheryl (2013). Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0385349947.
 * Burns, Dasha. "What Jennifer Lawrence reveals about women, equal pay". CNN. Retrieved 2016-10-26.
 * Janssen, Simon, Simone Tuor Sartore, and Uschi Backes-Gellner. "Discriminatory Social Attitudes and Varying Gender Pay Gaps within Firms." ILR Review 69.1 (2016): 253-79. Business Source Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
 * Misra, Joya, and Eiko Strader. "Gender Pay Equity in Advanced Countries: The Role of Parenthood and Policies." Journal of International Affairs 67.1 (2013): 27. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
 * Reporter, Lydia O'Connor; Post, The Huffington (2016-04-12). "The Wage Gap: Terrible For All Women, Even Worse For Women Of Color". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-26.M.nie (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for by country section
At the end of the introduction, I propose the following addition to link to a table of 145 countries within The Global Gender Gap Report 2015: Internationally, the World Economic Forum provides global gender gap rankings and scores from 2015 for 145 countries based on economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment scores. Within the by country section, I propose adding the following new countries:

China
Using the gaps between men and women in economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment, The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 ranks China’s gender gap at 91 out of 145 countries (the lower the ranking, the narrower the gender gap), which is four rankings below 2014’s global index. China's 2015 gender gap score was 0.681 (1.00 being equality). As an upper middle income country, as classified by the World Bank, China is the “third-least improved country in the world” on the gender gap. The health and survival subindex is the lowest within the countries listed; this subindex takes into account the gender differences of life expectancy and sex ratio at birth (the ratio of male to female children to depict the preferences of sons in accordance with China’s One Child Policy) In particular, Jayoung Yoon claims the women's employment rate is decreasing. However, several of the contributing factors might be expected to increase women's participation. Yoon's contributing factors include: the traditional gender roles; the abundance of childcare services provided by the state; the obstacle of childrearing; and the prevalence of highly educated, unmarried women, or “leftover women.” In alignment with the traditional gender roles, the “Women Return to the Home” movement by the government encouraged women to leave their jobs to alleviate the men’s unemployment rate.

Japan
Jayoung Yoon analyzes Japan’s culture of the traditional male breadwinner model, where the husband works outside of the house while the wife is the caretaker. Despite these traditional gender roles for women, Japan aims to enhance the economy by improving the labor policies for mothers with Abenomix (2013), an economy revitalization strategy. Yoon believes Abenomix represents a desire to remedy the effects of an aging population rather than a desire to promote gender equality. Evidence for the conclusion is the finding that women are entering the workforce in contingent positions. Women's participation rates do not seem to be influenced by government policies. The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 established that Japan’s economic participation and opportunity ranking (106th), 145th being the broadest gender gap, dropped from 2014 “due to lower wage equality for similar work and fewer female legislators, senior officials and managers."

Jordan
From a total of 145 states, the World Economic Forum calculates Jordan’s gender gap ranking for 2015 as 140th through economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment evaluations. Jordan is the “world’s second-least improved country” for the overall gender gap. The ranking dropped from 93rd in 2006. In contradiction to Jordan’s provisions within its constitution and being signatory to multiple conventions for improving the gender pay gap, there is no legislation aimed at gender equality in the workforce. According to The Global Gender Gap Report 2015, 35% of the gender pay gap has been resolved.

Singapore
According to Jayoung Yoon, Singapore’s aging population and low fertility rates are resulting in more women joining the labor force in response to the government’s desire to improve the economy. The government provides tax relief to mothers in the workforce to encourage them to continue working. Yoon states that “as female employment increases, the gender gap in employment rates…narrows down” in Singapore. As a matter of fact, The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 ranks Singapore’s gender gap at 54th out of 145 states globally based on the economic participation and opportunity, the educational attainment, the health and survival, and the political empowerment subindexes (a lower rank means a smaller gender gap). The gender gap narrowed from 2014 with the ranking of 59. In the Asia and Pacific region, Singapore has evolved the most in the economic participation and opportunity subindex, yet it is lower than the region’s means in educational attainment and political empowerment.

South Korea
As stated by Jayoung Yoon, South Korea’s female employment rate has increased since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis as a result of women 25 to 34 years old leaving the workforce later to become pregnant and women 45 to 49 years old returning to the workforce. Mothers are more likely to continue working after child rearing on account of the availability of affordable childcare services or the difficulty to be rehired after child rearing. The World Economic Forum found that, in 2015, 65% of the gender gap was closed. From a total of 145 countries, South Korea had a gender gap ranking of 115th (the lower the ranking, the narrower the gender gap). On the other hand, political empowerment dropped to half of the percentage of women in the government in 2014. Any suggestions for these additions?Cardinal0205 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed some grammatical errors and syntax issues to give more clarity to my above proposals.Cardinal0205 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some minor revisions to my proposal.Cardinal0205 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --203.110.146.116 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It was erroneously tagged in the first place. This is a legitimate issue, well structured, and reference.

Original tagger clearly has an agenda.

Nonsense
I've been adding a deletion template to this page a couple of times, and have been threatened with a block because of it. Fair enough - I've been warned and I won't do it again. That said, the current state of this article is frankly unacceptable. The idea that a problematic wage gap exists in real terms is stated as fact throughout the majority of the article (including a breakdown of this statistic by country), with only one small section for criticism. Even then, the quotes/sources cited in this section are relatively poor. This article needs a huge NPOV overhaul, starting with a rename to "Perceived gender pay gap" (or some variation to make it clear that there is no discriminatory gender pay gap existing for any other reason than natural convergence rather than systematic sexism). Appalling article. 68.232.71.82 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion is not supported by reliable sources; I would direct you to the myriad of sources cited in this article as reasons why your suggestions will not be implemented. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you, by any chance, also a feminist? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not one is a feminist is completely irrelevant to the fact that any changes in the article need to come from WP:RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete
I think we should delete the part that says "according to one study." The one study was not cited, so it does not make sense to keep it. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The study is cited later in the body of the article (ref #52). Per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lede should be minimal. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
change the equal pay act of 1973 to 1963 because its the actual date of the government document. Matias nordenstahl (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: Matches Wikipedia article on this legislation. Thank you for helping to improve this article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Correll study original research.
I removed a line saying that the Corell study found that "for identical resumes fewer replies were sent to men compared with women". As far as I can tell, this is flatly untrue; that phrase appears nowhere in the study. It appears that a user, after analyzing the data in the study's table themselves, came to that conclusion; but this is unequivocally original research. When citing a study, we must rely on the author's interpretations of their data rather than trying to apply our own - for instance, based on how they modeled the study, it might not be usable in the way that that editor tried to interpret it. Regarding the Williams study, meanwhile, the level of detail in which it is discussed was clearly WP:UNDUE relative to the rest of the paragraph and the study's comparative (in)significance - for example, Google Scholar finds less than 70 cites to it, whereas the orchestra study or the motherhood penalty studies mentioned far more briefly above has over a thousand. Someone clearly likes that study, since I noticed them going through and adding it to as many pages as possible a while back, but it's important to weight the focus we give a study according to its significance and impact. In fact, I hadn't noticed until I checked just now just how insignificant the Williams study was in terms of impact - unless someone can present me with an argument otherwise, I think I'm going to remove it entirely. The purpose of this section isn't to list every single paper ever written on the topic; and a paper with < 70 citations to it should not be weighted equally to ones that have gotten thousands and which are clearly central to the field, especially when so many questions have been raised about that paper's methodology. (It is probably not the only paper given WP:UNDUE weight on this page, of course - a major problem with relying on primary sources - but given the severity of the gap between it and the others it's being contrasted with, it seems like a good place to start; we can try and evaluate the other sources and replace them with better ones from there.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

relevant article in The Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-chart?fsrc=scn/tw/once

should be included in a way Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017
Regarding the European Union section. I've bolded what I think should be added:

At EU level, the gender pay gap is defined as the relative difference in the average gross hourly earnings of women and men within the economy as a whole. Eurostat found a persisting gender pay gap of 17.5% on average in the 27 EU Member States in 2008.[citation needed] There were considerable differences between the Member States, with the unadjusted (says so in the source) pay gap ranging from less than 10% in Italy, Slovenia, Malta, Romania, Belgium, Portugal, and Poland to more than 20% in Slovakia, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, United Kingdom, and Greece and more than 25% in Estonia and Austria.[22] SaliVader (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"More Criticism" section proposal
An article in the Economist published on July 27, 2017 title; The Wage Gap Between Men and Women Varies Depending on Job Types. The article points out that differences in pay are found to be "wider at the top, narrower at the bottom." https://www.economist.com/news/business/21725586-wider-top-narrower-bottom-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-varies-depending

On August 1st, 2017, the Economist published another article, title; Are Women Paid Less Than Men?" The article states that when all difference are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears. https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-chart Finally, and while written not for use on the Wikipedia article titled; Gender Pay Gap, I think the reason this article has been semi-locked at all is because, there are several assertions made above the, 'Criticism' and 'More Criticism' Section, which go to great lengths to unravel the subjective intent of an author's words and posts. This futile exercise (which it is truly such, as neither one can look inside the others mind to confirm their subjective convictions they so fervently hold; and bold) is done on both sides of the argument. These squabbles over the true intent of the posting party, I think it's fair to say, have placed this article behind a lock and key, and, these ongoing retaliatory quips distract from the actual issues and purpose of the article; that is, the dissemination of accurate information that is cited from reputable sources that illuminate a topic with demonstrated knowledge and reasoned examinations, rather than a source to vindicate preconceived notions.

Regrettably I write, theoretical deductions i.e. a priori conclusions, invariably rely on justifications incomplete in their examinations of the matter deduced, which, by their very formation are illogical. For example, to say the reason more squirrels, than chipmunks, are run-over by automobiles is because drivers hate, disparage, and dismiss Squirrels more than chipmunks, overlooks all other objective and reasonable explanations for why it is squirrels become road-kill so much more often than chipmunk. More importantly, theoretical deductions are not a mode for creating a sound or logical analysis (no matter how many people believe it), and when people engaged such modes they only impede theirs and others route toward genuine a solution/s to helping the squirrels; who could safely cross the street if they had a little squirrel-bridge for them, rather than congregating to form consortiums, publishing papers, and enrolling in colleges courses devoted to examining why drivers hate them so much. The squirrels that is.

So, for the squirrels sake, obtaining a genuine solution is based largely on understanding the root of the problem. If the problem is misunderstand, the requisite help and advice does not reach the squirrel; and that's what the squirrels wants, and in addition, wants the squirrel to be be equal in their rates of flattening by automobiles as the chipmunks.

Paradoxically, it turns out, drivers hate chipmunks more than Squirrels yet, chipmunks get run-over far less than squirrels because chipmunks wait longer for automobiles to pass-by before they start to cross the road. Sadly, few squirrels, chipmunks and people know this because, pointing to hatred and discrimination of squirrels by drivers (while false) is far easier to intuitively comprehend and appreciate as a squirrel. Who hears and sees articles about more squirrels getting run over than chipmunks and is told drivers hate them; rather than contemplating and examining the other objective reasons why this might be happening to squirrels; reasons which many, many squirrels and chipmunks have accurately written about, but which some squirrels seem, willfully blind to.

Thus, if the squirrels only looked to the objective facts and not to emotional rationales (that have no basis other than a squirrels mind) they'd see, squirrels are just as capable as chipmunks but they have to do like a chipmunk; and, rather than trying to find new ways to link (and reinforce their theoretical deductions that claim a drivers hatred is to blame for their high-rate of being flattened) they should look twice before they cross the street.

Any remarks regarding these remarks I kindly ask please be framed using squirrels and chipmunks so as to alleviate animosity that usually ensues when other nouns are used to discussed issue that have a gender component. I myself, am a man who identifies as a squirrel. As a squirrel, I identify as a woman; she identifies as a chipmunk. I hope that makes everything clear.
 * These seem to already be covered (with better sources and more neutral phrasing) in the "Effect of job choices", "Effect of socialization", and "Effect of pop culture" sections. I'm particularly bothered that you lumped these articles together into a section entitled "myth explanation"; none of them say that it is a myth (in fact, they all acknowledge it's real); they just analyze the impact of various factors on it. Combining them together into a section that states that it's a myth is synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There used to be a section about "criticism of the 77% myth/lie" which was here for a very long time.
 * It was deleted by some editor because he did not like it. Without providing good justification. Should be restored IMHO Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I recall, it was deleted because it was poorly-sourced and relied heavily on synthesis and original research. Going over your most recent version...  the first part, about the impact of job differences, is already covered with much better sources and more neutral wording in the "job difference" section.  Most of the other cites are to op-eds and WP:NEWSBLOGs, which aren't good sources for economic issues and can't be used for statements of fact.  And the final paragraph was entirely unsourced original research; the only cite was totally unrelated to the pay gap.  Beyond that, there's a more basic flaw here - you're writing the section to try and attack what you feel is the "myth" of discrimination against women; but you're writing it as if the pay gap itself is a myth.  This is a distinction that better sources (ie. ones other than blogs and op-eds) are more careful to make; no one disputes that the pay gap is real, but they disagree over its causes and what those causes mean.  If you want to post sources arguing that job choice is the primary cause of the wage gap, the best place to put it is in the existing "effect of job choices" section. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Chipmunk reply: Fret not human, my writings were not undertaken to bother and any bother you find, I extend an apology to, but I insist, any bother you may have gleaned, you’ve bestowed upon yourself and then cast it upon this page so that ridicule not reason is the argument your standby. Indeed, I ask this of you; the sources cited in the overview section, did you check for the word overview in the sources in that section to ensure this gravely bothersome trouble hasn’t occurred there as well? Or, how about the section titled, Over time? Do all sources beneath this heading include the entitlement over time, so as to be acceptable and a useful source of information? If not, and were I human, I wonder, would I be particularly bothered by the source or, is there something else that humans find bothersome that I am missing? Just an inquisitive chipmunk you see but, for the sake of human communication as this is the talk forum, please suggest a title that suits your needs and I’ll change Myth to suggested title (see below for remarks on synthesis). Op-eds from the Data Team at the Economist, it’s true; that is my source. Please forgive my choice of sources being poor for discussing economics. As a chipmunk, I believed this wildly popular magazine, entitled the Economist encapsulated matters regarding the economy; I must have been mistaken. Unless? No it couldn’t be; could it? May I ask, do you dispute the material of the source I’ve provided, or do you build this framed rebuttal against my sources because, the content does not support… support, well, whatever it is you support? (Also, I thought there was a source in the final paragraph, no?) And Original research, hardly. That’s just subject verb agreement, and diction. In Chipmunk school, they say humans have been doing that since the human language came about; but, that’s just what they tell us. A more basic flaw you say? One, which is so basic I didn’t create a scenario with chipmunks, squirrels, and angry drivers just to try and keep a barrier between rational contemplation and human feelings? I think I covered that. But the fact is, no flaw exists in my post and, most importantly; the sources and my post are not my ideas. I simply included this material, which is of genuine and high-quality information (sourced to authoritative institutions), in the Wikipedia article that discussed the matter. Second most important point, the sources I included do indeed dispute the gender pay gap, not me; I’m just a chipmunk. So, if academic and respected authoritative sources are abound that directly oppose the Economist, by all means, assert your position with material and facts that invalidate this with a source; as I’ve done in the More Criticism section. If, instead you wish to attempt feeble insinuations eluding to the subjective intent of a post, casting criticisms to create a theme of some machination I’ve plotted because I feel… something? Well I suppose, carry on, but know you waste this space by making unfounded assertions to support yourself, the individual, and seek to disparage me (But I’m just a chipmunk). This article isn’t titled, You and the Chipmunk (Is it?). No, this article isn’t about you and me. When I posted information to More Criticism, I didn’t seek to vilify the other persons who posted material, to ostracize their intentions for including sources in this article I have personal opinions about. No, I took up the issue; gender and pay. Both of which are included in the portal titled; Discrimination. Now, as a small rodent you have to understand my purpose as such. As chipmunk, I didn’t decide to put the Gender Pay Gap article within the discrimination portal. Nor did I write the Economist Op-ed. Nor was I one of the scientists, professors, or legislators who make policy-decisions regarding gender identify but, as English speakers, I (we) all have a basic understanding of the language, and, the language I used in the final paragraph was not an amalgamation that I forged by a series of attenuate assumptions strung together by these terms you cling to; original research or synthesis. I simply included one source; no new information was added in the final paragraph to the gender pay gap assertion in my post. I simply pointed out each requirement necessary for the gender pay gap; that was it. Sincerely, Sydney J. Chipmunk.
 * Unfortunately, the source is still a WP:NEWSBLOG and therefore unsuitable for statements of fact - it represents the personal feelings of the author, not something we can use in a citation the way you want. Additionally, it still covers things already better-covered in the "Effects of Job Choice" section, and still doesn't even support your assertion that the gap is a "myth" (it just argues over the causes, which, again, is a debate we already cover further down in the article), which means that using it the way you're trying to do is synthesis - you're taking unrelated sources and putting them together to try and create an argument not present in any of them individually.  The final paragraph is similarly WP:SYNTH because the one source you added only indicates that trans rights are a thing - the argument that they have an impact on the pay gap is something you invented whole-cloth, and you need sources specifically saying making that argument to back it up. Finally, please remember to assume good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Mister or Madam, I’ve resisted until now but with due respect these remarks you posit are your individual stance and as such they ooze a personal fear. One clearly evoked by the potential vicissitudes my post may have on others who dare I say, could read about matters which are widely known and not of my creation; simply my addition to Wikipedia. I’ve sagaciously marked for you the points that pin my arguments nay the true of the matter together, while in return, you rejoin with emotional murmurs that do not dispute my assertions but grasp for more subjective pronouncements against me that embolden others to seek refuge in their emotional reactions, the very tempestuous remarks that should be avoided in an editor of such an article as this. You seek to counsel me on matters of truth and assumptions of good faith, though you trammel a chipmunk, who’s asserted truthful matters but, not a second thought of these virtues you praise is made for a rodent like I. Human being, it would do you good to take your own advice rather than sanguinely cloak yourself in citations and sources that are merely similitudes of your own personal feelings; not worthy references published by impartial and arduous scholars. While a full cup holds no water an empty cup has never quenched the thirst of any intellectual appetite and unfortunately, from what you’ve written you’re cup is not full, not even half but simply emptied and turned on its brim; resistant to any additions that may be different in taste. I insist you treat your palate you may like the flavor of demonstrated knowledge. Sincerely, Sydney J. Chipmunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlich89 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad Source Interpretation
Regarding the heading:

The heading currently states, "Someone who takes time off (e.g. maternity leave) will likely not earn as much as someone who does not take time off from work. Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women, but when all external factors have been adjusted for, there still exists a gender pay gap in many situations (between 4.8% and 7.1% according to one study[1])." and cites a report from the CONSAD Research Corporation. However, (on page 4 of the PDF, page 2 of the report itself) the report says, "Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap," and later lists more examples of variables that could be included in a comprehensive study.

The wording here directly contradicts what the original report states, and implies that ALL possible variables have been accounted for in the study. It implies from that assumption that this remaining 4.8 - 7.1% gap is not explainable by anything other than systemic bias, which is not the conclusion the study draws at all.

I propose that this paragraph from the head of the article be changed from:

"There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap: unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap which takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. For example, someone who takes time off (e.g. maternity leave) will likely not earn as much as someone who does not take time off from work. Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women, but when all external factors have been adjusted for, there still exists a gender pay gap in many situations (between 4.8% and 7.1% according to one study[1]). Unadjusted pay gaps are much higher. In the United States, for example the unadjusted average female's annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary.[2]"

to:

"There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap: unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. Adjusted pay gap takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. When the main external factors - such as differences in hours worked, women tending to prefer fringe benefits over raw wages, differences in job selection, and absence of women from the labor force due to child birth, child care and elderly care - have been adjusted for, there still exists a gender pay gap in many situations (between 4.8% and 7.1%). However, most of this remaining gap can most likely be explained by the remaining variables - such as work experience and job tenure - that are not included in the factors that are adjusted for.[1] Unadjusted pay gaps are much higher. In the United States, for example the unadjusted average female's annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary.[2]"

with the difference between the old and new being the replacement of the old, incorrect interpretation of the study with the new, correct one and some minor grammar fixes.

Study this cites: https://web.archive.org/web/20131008051216/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
 * I don't understand why that study was in the lead in the first place (especially since, if I read it right, it only applied to one country, yet its particular figures were being presented without any such clarification); there's no particular reason for us to place such heavily WP:UNDUE weight on it when we have sources covering the pay gap more generally. Certainly I'd be opposed to devoting even more space to it in the lead.  It can be covered further down where it belongs, as one of the numerous studies on the topic that have tackled it from different angles. --Aquillion (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. I understand that it doesn't pertain to the world as much as it does the U.S., but it it fairly important for the U.S., as it's a Department of Labor sanctioned report, so this same weight should probably be carried over to the U.S. section. The WP:UNDUE page says this: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." And the U.S. Dep of Labor is probably about as reliable as you can get. As for the heading for the entire article, what changes do you propose so that it's more generalized and removes this country specific statistic? And do you have any of the other sources that discuss it more generally so we can look over them and decide how to implement them? --ShadowDrimax (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent Legislation
The AAUW gave coverage over some legislation that happened in 2017. I think that adding the new laws might be beneficial to the article. Sbocaj5 (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest adding Under legislation tab:

In 2017 Five States in America (California, Delaware, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado) As well as the America territory Puerto Rico all passed laws to speed up the process of creating equal payment. Specifically California[1] Delaware[2], Oregon[3], and Puerto Rico[4],.All passed laws prohibiting employers from inquiring workers of their past wages. As for Colorado[5] and Nevada and again Puerto Rico expanded on those laws that, which were already enacted and expanded the acting protection.

^ "California bosses can no longer ask you about your previous salary". Orange County Register. 2017-10-13. Retrieved 2017-12-12. ^ "Governor Carney Signs Legislation to Address Gender Pay Gap - State of Delaware News". news.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-12. ^ "Oregon Senate passes Equal Pay Act of 2017; what it means for you". OregonLive.com. Retrieved 2017-12-12. ^ "Puerto Rico Enacts Equal Pay Law, Prohibits Employers from Inquiring about Past Salary History". Jackson Lewis. 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-12-12. ^ "Repeal Prohibition Of Wage Sharing Information | Colorado General Assembly". leg.colorado.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-12. Sbocaj5 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017
It is estimated that 50% of women would have to change their job to achieve similar pay to men. (Alksnis, 2000) Hence, women are sorted into lower-wage but higher-prestige jobs and men into lower-prestige and higher-paid jobs, resulting in the gender wage gap (Kristin J. Kleinjans, 2017). Sophiekkk (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts..
Some of the information seems very shallow and can surely be elaborated on. For Example, on the socializing section, a recent article about the pay gap of women because of children seems very out of place and could potentially be relevant in this section given there were more evidence and information. The countries are hit and miss, some give good information while others seem to be there per quantity reasons and not quality.

The metrics on the table at the beginning, do we know what they are?

Regardless, the article is lengthy with good information, good job everyone. Cohoward (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018
207.189.34.95 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In the 1970s, women did not have the same education level, yet were still majoring in subjects that had highly labor forces as men. In the early 1980s, women started to invest more time and effort into their education. By make themselves more qualified for the jobs, most would assume that they would eventually start being considered equal to the men on the job, women still weren’t being paid appropriately. Women started to invest more time and effort into their education. In 1980s, women were only making 67% of what their male counterparts earn. (Goldin, 69)

Goldin, Claudia, and Tanya Devani. “Narrowing the Wage Gap.” An Interview with Claudia Goldin, Harvard International Review, 7 Aug. 2017, hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=14544.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources not corresponding to the claims in the article
The affirmation that "the gender pay gap no longer exists" had 4 sources. I decided to check one, by curiosity. The source I selected is "Dynamics of the Gender Gap for Young Professionals in the Financial and Corporate Sectors". The title is already a clue that the study wasn't actually about gender pay wap in general but I looked further. "Experimental evidence suggests that women have less taste for the highly-competitive environments in top finance and corporate jobs and female MBAs may be less willing to aggressively negotiate for pay and promotion. MBA women may be subject to implicit or explicit gender discrimination, and even talented female MBAs may encounter difficulty getting recognized in male-dominated workplaces." "We have examined gender differences in the career dynamics of MBAs who graduated from a top US business school—the Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago—from 1990 to 2006. Immediately following MBA completion, male and female MBAs from this elite program have nearly identical labor incomes and weekly hours worked. But the gender gap in annual earnings expands considerably as their careers progress, reaching almost 60 log points at 10 to 16 years after MBA completion." The source used isn't about the actual subject and the study didn't even clearly show gender pay gap doesn't exist. As often, reality is more complexe.

Let's continue : Wikipedia says "In the United States, for example the unadjusted average female's annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary, compared to 93% for the adjusted average salary for graduates.". Let's take a look at the source : "O'Brien, Sara Ashley", a CNN article. What does it say ? "A study from the American Association of University Women showed there is a 7% wage gap between male and female college grads a year after graduation, even controlling for college major, occupation, age, geographical region and hours worked." "It starts early and it accumulates over time" First of all, the true source should be the study from the AAUW. Next, that study shows there is already a 7% adjusted gender wage gap in the US (localization is important) after a year, and that gap grows years after years. After reading that correctly, how can someone concludes "the gender pay gap no longer exists" ?

Wrong sources, false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurHeine (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The text as of Feb 5 read "actors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women, but even with all external factors have been adjusted for, a gender pay gap still exists". It should probably be reverted to that wording. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think(?) i see same thing - "With all external factors adjusted for, the gender pay gap no longer exists.[1][2][3][4]". I just took casual look at those citations, and they definitely do NOT show that adjusted pay gap 'no longer exists'. Quite the opposite. They do however show the gap narrowing over time Slangeberg (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed it – I hope (diff). The statements Unadjusted pay gaps are much higher and According to some studies, the wealth gap dwarfs the pay gap are pretty obvious red flags that this was simple vandalism – the pay gap has to exist to be comparable to anything else. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Uber study
I've removed this material for now. While interesting and topical, it comes from a single primary research paper with no sign of having gone through peer review (while two of the authors are from Stanford University, this doesn't appear to be an official Stanford publication either). If we cited every primary research paper as established science, we'd have to completely re-write all our scientific articles every month. See WP:RS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Would you be satisfied if secondary sources are also provided? There are plenty of them: Financial Times, Forbes, Bloomberg, The Daily Telegraph, The American Enterprise Institute... --FrankAndProust (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * After waiting for over a week and not receiving a single answer, I proceed to reinstate the section and add a couple of related secondary sources from Financial Times and Fortune to comply with the suggestion by user Sangdeboeuf. --FrankAndProust (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Over-reliance on think tanks.
I've noticed several recent edits trying to shift the article to rely very heavily on a handful of think tanks (especially the American Enterprise Institute.) Such think tanks are neither academically accredited nor well-established publishers; things they publish are essentially self-published with no peer review. We can cite them, very cautiously, with in-line citations when describing it as their own opinion (not as fact), but even that has to be done very carefully and would generally be WP:UNDUE in a broad article like this one. We certainly can't cite them directly for statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Measurement
Dear fellow Wikipedians, it would be great if someone could add a section on the measurement of gender pay gap and the differences between adjusted and unadjusted GPG. Oaxaca-Blinder Decomposition is the relevant keyword here. --Merkasso (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018
Women’s pay is about 80%, on average, of what a man makes. This seems to be true across many industries, ages, and cultural backgrounds. While there are some legitimate reasons that this may happen (think supply and demand and market forces), there are some cases where there is no legitimate explanation. This portion is generally seen as discrimination against women in the workplace. There are methods that can be used to help prevent these issues within an organization, and can be a baseline for other organizations to figure out their own methods to correct the issue. Acknowledging the issue is the first step to closing the gap. 2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:54 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, 2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:54. I get what you're saying and I sympathize, but the semi-protected edit request is for specific changes you want to see in the text--meaning exact words added and removed. Otherwise I (or any other editor who can edit through the protection) wouldn't be able to say "I'm making this exact change on behalf of 2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:54" because the precise change would be my wording and my idea and not something discussed on the talk page. If you propose a specific change I can execute it but if not I can only comment on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018
Change "Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women; while the pay gap has narrowed over time, a gender pay gap still exists, even when controlling for these external factors." to "Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women; while both unadjusted and adjusted pay gaps have narrowed over time, a gender pay gap still exists. However, it is not possible to check and compensate for all factors affecting salary, such as hazardousness and harshness of work conditions. Statistical models can therefore not unequivocally link the remaining gap after adjustment to a potential gender discrimination.[ ]"

Change "The gender pay gap can be a problem from a public policy perspective even when the reason for the gap is entirely voluntary, because it reduces economic output and means that women are more likely to be dependent upon welfare payments, especially in old age." to "The gender pay gap can be a problem from a public policy perspective even when the reason for the gap is entirely voluntary, because it reduces economic output and means that women are more likely to be dependent upon welfare payments, especially in old age. Notwithstanding, the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap.[ ]" Ecuilau (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ecuilau, For your first change (and they would have been better presented as two separate requests), I don't see where you get the support for "...both unadjusted and adjusted.'., can you elaborate? For the sentence starting, "However..." can you provide a page number, please?
 * I'm not going to look at your second paragraph, because it is entirely based on a YouTube video. Not only did you not provide an indicator of where in the video to look to support your assertion, YouTube is a self-published site, and so falls under WP:SPS.  If this is a respected documentary, it might be possible to use it, but you'd need to support the status of the documentary maker and the uploader as reliable sources and perhaps excerpt a transcribed quote from it so we can see what you are using for support.  See also WP:YT and WP:VIDEOLINK. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Job choices "explaining 53% of the pay gap" / Industry Sector
In the "Job choices" subsection of the "sources" section, it's stated that ''Men are more likely to be in relatively high-paying, dangerous industries such as mining, construction, or manufacturing and to be represented by a union. Women, in contrast, are more likely to be in clerical jobs and to work in the service industry. These factors explain 53% of the wage gap.'' How can this possibly be true when the country in question is not specified? Skimming through the source it doesn't seem to mention the surveyed country -it's certainly not mentioned in the article at the time of my comment-, and I'm willing to wager that the causes of the pay gap in the US are different from those in Sweden or Saudi Arabia, or about 190 countries with different cultures, systems of government and levels of gender equality. Should Swedish or Saudi women base their view on the issue on this figure? Not in my opinion, but it's probably happening. Such a precise percentage, when presented without any location qualifiers is misleading in my view.RadicallyNeutral (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I ageee. I think the passage should be changed to something like "According to a study of xx country in yy time period, it was estimated that these factors explain 53% of the wage gap." If the source doesn't make stating this possible than we probably need to remove this or find a better source. -18:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two sentences in question here. Each requires a reference. The second one is, as pointed out here, likely an example (or worse a hypothesis). Suggestion 1: add 'citation required' to the first sentence (there is sociology research into careers with gender imbalance. Suggestion 2: also needs a citation, again there is academic research available. As I find the appropriate research I will add. In the meantime I will add 'citation required'. --JEM1406a (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To 'Industry Sector' added this sentence "In Jacobs (1995), Boyd et al refer to the horizontal division of labor as 'high-tech' (predominantly men) versus 'high-touch' (predominantly women) with high tech being more financially rewarding." And the relevant reference. Also added that a citation is required for the sentence about men's industry sector. (There was already a citation required about the women's industry sector.JEM1406a (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Redundancies in this article
Maybe someone can comment on why the '..reasons for low pay' segment is repeated, word for word in the body of the article after appearing in the introduction. This happens again with the statement regarding the impact on the welfare system. Perhaps the redundancy is built-in, in order to provide emphasis.
 * Doesn't concern me much. Lead is supposed to summarize other parts of the article and if simple repeating passages gives a good summary than I think that's ok. Stylistically I can see an argument for tweaking the words to not be exact repeats, but seems like a pretty low priority concern. Go ahead and tweak if you think it would be better, but please do try to retain the summary purpose that these statements fulfill. -Pengortm (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Consider change to second sentence
Consider changing “Women are generally paid less than men” to a sentence that better introduces the discussion immediately following about adjusted vs unadjusted pay gaps. Perhaps “While women are generally paid less then men on average, the size of the disparity depends on whether or not aspects of individual choice are taken into account.”

Eternalvigilance82 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having the sentence be more efficient and segue in more, but I think reducing adjusted/unadjusted to simply a matter of "individual choice" would be too misleading since it is probably not just choice that is being adjusted for. -Pengortm (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The introductory sentence should summarize the main points of the article. It is accurate to say that "Women are generally paid less than men." The reasons are complex and varied by country, societal structures and individual agency (the ability to make choice within structures). It is inaccurate to indicate 'choice': no-one 'chooses' to be paid less, although they may choose careers that are typically less valued and subsequently paid less. Indicating 'choice' in the summary section misrepresents a summary of the causes of the gender pay gap. --JEM1406a (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So, choice isn't a factor, but it also is a factor? In any case, Eternalvigilance82 is right, and I think their suggested edit fits in perfectly with the flow of the paragraph.StigmaOfTruth (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your change, as I hardly think there is consensus here to implement it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear StigmaOfTruth, This sociology concept of [| Structure and Agency] may be helpful for you understand 'choice versus limited choices'.JEM1406a (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed
Various aspect of the page have no references or the reference provided does not collaborate/provide proof.

For this sentence the reference provided does not collaborate the idea: "when a woman is paid less than a man for the same job, is relatively rare due to strong EU laws against it" On the contrary there are references of the gender pay gap for the same job in the EU. Further the linked page includes reference to the on-going efforts by the EU to strengthen the laws and oversight. Here is what seems to me to be the most relevant paragraphy from the EU website: "The Commission Communication COM(2007) 424 final (2) concluded that women continue to be affected by gender pay discrimination and inequalities in the labour market which prevents them from realising their full potential. Conspicuous direct pay discrimination for the exact same work has become a rather rare occurrence. However, the existing legal framework has been less effective in ensuring implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Such discrimination is less likely to be the subject of a court case not only because potential victims are probably not aware of it, but also because it is more difficult for victims of pay discrimination to effectively enforce the principle of equal pay. Victims have to establish the facts that give rise to a presumption of discrimination in order to shift the burden of proof to the employer. Obscure pay structures and a lack of available information about pay levels of employees performing the same work or work of equal value are major contributing factors to these difficulties." You can read it yourself here This page also provide similar context: => Propose the sentence is deleted unless suitable reference(s) can be located. JEM1406a (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Discrimination paragraph


 * Found reference and therefore removing the phrase "is relatively rare due to strong EU laws against it".

This is the latest EU document aimed at addressing the Gender Pay Gap (amongst other work-family and equality considerations). "In relation to the gender pay gap, Parliament has repeatedly called for the revision of the Equal Pay Directive, due to the ineffective enforcement of its provisions. In its resolution of 8 October 2015 on ‘Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation’, Parliament asked the Commission to identify the weak points of the Equal Pay Directive and to draw up a legislative proposal to replace it as a matter of urgency. It underlined that progress has been extremely slow, that the gender pay gap still stands at an average of 16.4 % across the EU, and that transposition of EU law into national law has not led to full application and effective enforcement of the directive’s provisions." See page 4 here => JEM1406a (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018
Add the following subheading and text under "Consequences".

For learning
Recent analysis conducted by the World Bank and available in the 2019 World Development Report on The Changing Nature of Work connects earnings with skill accumulation, suggesting that women also accumulate less human capital (skills and knowledge) at work and through their careers. The Report shows that the payoffs to work experience is lower for women across the world as compared to men. For example, in Venezuela, for each additional year of work, men's wages increase on average by 2.2 percent, compared to only 1.5 percent for women. In Denmark, by contrast, the payoffs to an additional year of work experience are the same for both men and women, at 5 percent on average. To address these differences, the Report argues that governments could seek to remove limitations on the type or nature of work available to women and eliminate rules that limit women's property rights. Parental leave, nursing breaks, and the possibility for flexible or part-time schedules are also identified as potential factors limiting women's learning in the workplace. Dlconnon (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅, with a couple of typos corrected. Fish +Karate 13:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Motherhood Penalty
Added more information about motherhood penalty from Gender pay gap and its perceptions journal. Despite of corporate policies for creating equality at workplace, the wage gap and motherhood penalty still exist. Qhdud12 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing the sentence "women are generally paid less than men"
I'd propose changing the sentence to "On average, women are paid less than men." It's subtle, but "generally" seems too all-encompassing, and a disputable claim to make. Saying "on average" is simply a fact that can be supported with empirical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C400:2847:2102:1657:D398:ADBC (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. Thing is however not limited to a single average. The overriding way of calculating the gender pay gap would indicate an average and therefore be correct. However there are lots of ways of calculating the gender pay gaps, such as by industry sector or geography. Using the term 'generally' alludes to this broader situation. --JEM1406a (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Brazil
Much of the info does not relate to the pay gap, rather gender inequality in gender. I propose to move all non-pay related items to another page. What would that other pay be? About Brazil or Brazilian Inequality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEM1406a (talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"a gender pay gap still exists, even when controlling for these external factors"
Thank you for the further elaboration in your edit summary and my talk page about the passage we are disagreeing on. Nonetheless, I still think the summary is inaccurate. This is a tricky issue. There is no debate that an UNADJUSTED gender pay gap exists. The issue is whether when properly controlled for (which is difficult to do) the gender pay gap persists. The passage you are pointing to does not say that the gender pay gap persists "even when controlling for these external factors". Also, the lead should be summarizing the body of the article, not making new points not in the article.-Pengortm (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender gap is nonsense and has no data to support it
If you are not buying this for its face value, you can see the other side arguments in the pages below:


 * The Equal-Pay Myth That Just Won't Die - Wage differences actually reflect personal choices and economic realities.
 * Harvard Study: "Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women - The “gender wage gap” is as real as unicorns and has been killed more times than Michael Myers.

189.9.74.2 (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2019
In the discrimination section: "Claims that women are less willing and having less ability to negotiate salaries and battle sexual discrimination.[19][20][21], although more recent research indicates women tend to negotiate as much as men when it is explicitly stated that wages are negotiable[22]." This sentence seems to be poorly written, and adding a subject at the beginning such as "Some economists say" or simply "It is claimed that" would make it grammatically better.

In the motherhood section: "It's logical for couples who raise a child to decide who earns less and does large share of housework, usually the mother, take the main responsibility of child care, resulting women earn less." This sentence uses poor grammar and verb tense and should be changed (exact revision is up to the editor) to "Couples who raise a child tend to designate the mother as the one who does the larger share of housework and takes on the main responsibility of child care, and as a result women tend to have less time available for wage-earning." TheArcticFox47 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 19:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Intro section clarity
The second paragraph on this page would benefit from improvement.

1. For straight-forward items I added a 'citation required' tags.

2. This idea makes no sense to me: "The reasons for lower pay include innate factors".

a. What are innate factors?

b. What are innate factors in this context?

c. If innate factors exist and have impact on the gender pay gap? Citation required. => Should this sentence should be removed?

3. This sentence is grammatically weak: "An example of a voluntary choice is choosing to work part-time when full-time employment is available. An example of an involuntary choice is working a low-skill job because of an inability to access higher education." Choice by nature is voluntary. The nuisance here might be better expressed as 'restricted' and unrestricted' choice. => Either this should be changed to use the term 'restricted' or better, the sentence would link to the sociological concept of Agency JEM1406a (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * innate factors examples:
 * 1: women having innate skill differences. All kinds of data exists (and sometimes are contested) for gender differences that can't easily be explained away by cultural factors and discrimination. Note that even if the average skill overall are similar, men might have advantages in higher paying skills (say programming) while women might have higher skills is lower paying occupation (say teaching).  Innate skill difference would be giving birth to a child or being able to breast feed would be innate in women.
 * 2: There are data showing that women might be less motivated to pursue STEM education, even when fully talented. due.... to having stronger skills in other areas. So, if 100 men and women have math skills+motivation 200 points say. but all those 100 men have bad skills in all other areAS (say music, dancing, nursing etc etc), and those women are all possessing added skills in many other areas, all those men will try to do STEM, while many of the women will pursue the other options simply because those are available to them.
 * 3: motivation. the current consensus is that most of the gender differences are in motivation, rather than in skill per se.
 * 4: variance differences rather than average skill differences, which has more influence on the tails. but not sure this will be enough to influence average numbers. Jazi  Zilber (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have some references for the points above that would be most welcome. Perhaps this page would be a good starting point Sex_differences_in_humans JEM1406a (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

statistic ("80-98%" adjusted) is not supported by its cited references
The first paragraph of the article states: "In the United States, for example, the unadjusted average female's annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary, compared to 80–98% for the adjusted average salary." This is very misleading because, after finding the citation (despite the link being broken), the 80% statistic that's cited is not "adjusted" for number of hours worked, occupations chosen, education or job experience,it's simply a comparison of median ANNUAL income. In the sentence preceding this one,"adjusted" is defined as taking "into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience." Furthermore, the 98% statistic is not found anywhere in either of the two citations.

Lastly, this contradicts the Wikipedia page on "Gender pay gap in the United States," which states: "The average woman's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78%[2] to 82%[3] of that of the average man's. However, after adjusting for choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours and parental leave, multiple studies find that pay rates between men and women varied by 5–6.6% or, women earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts." I recommend either clarifying that 80% is the unadjusted median annual pay difference, or changing "80-98%" to 94% to agree with the US page. Or just delete the entire sentence because there's already an entire page on the subject. 24.231.150.12 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been changed back, but I'm not sure when. --Yhdwww (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sentence with only a study from 1998 to support
"Additionally, in the eyes of employees, women in middle management are perceived to lack the courage, leadership, and drive that male managers appear to have, despite female middle managers achieving results on par with their male counterparts in terms of successful projects and achieving results for their employing companies."

This is only supported by one study from 1998 in this Wikipedia page, are we able to find more evidence to support this or remove the sentence? Theknight27 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think at the very least this sentence needs to be modified to make clear that this is the result of one study. In general, I think we want to avoid citing single study primary source articles and depend more on things like meta-analyses and expert reviews instead.-Pengortm (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Student editor looking for a similar project?
Here are some related, vaguely related, and only partially related articles: EllenCT (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Gender mainstreaming
 * Unpaid work
 * Capability approach
 * Earned income tax credit
 * Tuition payments
 * Class size reduction
 * College tuition in the United States
 * Telecommuting
 * Workweek and weekend
 * Economic inequality
 * Austerity
 * Income inequality in the United States
 * Wealth inequality in the United States
 * Distribution of wealth
 * Corporate tax in the United States
 * Wage share
 * Labor unions in the United States
 * Economic progressivism
 * Consequentialism
 * Growth of photovoltaics
 * Power to gas
 * Carbon-neutral fuel

Wage gap at Google
Wonder why I don't see this mentioned in the article. — Srid 🍁 19:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Headline: "Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity". What the article actually says: "A study by Google of their employees found that some male employees were underpaid but methodological flaws mean it is unclear whether the result is correct." That's the problem with press sources with clickbaity headlines. We should probably work on removing non-academic sources not adding more; the gender pay gap is sufficiently well studied that we should be able to rely on first rate expert sources. Plus, it's an article about one company whereas the gender pay gap concerns a wide average; it's been bloody freezing in Yorkshire lately but I'm not going to add that to the Global Warming article. CIreland (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe there is a more recent source on this, other than opposing court filings, but I could be mistaken. EllenCT (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated OECD Data By Country
I believe the data listed in the OECD table regarding gender wage gaps should be updated, as the 2014 data is now quite dated. The OECD has published multiple reports in 2018/2019 regarding this issue, and the data can be freely found at https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.224.244 (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021
My request is as follows: it needs to be mentioned, in the first paragraph of this page the the gender pay gap is derived from attributing all changes occuring in a multivariate equation, to one variable, namely gender. And when all other variables such as hours worked, education level, etc. Are taken into account the portion of the pay gap that does exists tends to 0

I request this change to demonstrate the danger of assuming causation of anything, particularly something affected by multiple inputs, given a noticed correlation. As although that's one of the basic rules of statistical analysis, it is often forgotten, in lieu of being able to draw conclusions that fit an existing rhetoric 86.8.204.211 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia (And edit requests specifically) are not here so that you can provide your opinion on a topic. Please provide WP:RS for a change to be made. Thanks, Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 00:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of gender pay gap?
Shouldn't there be a section against people that don't think the gender pay gap exists/don't think the gender pay gap is an issue? Most pages related to politics have a "criticism" section. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In general it is best practices to integrate criticisms throughout the article. Sometimes separate criticisms sections are necessary, but I am guessing it is not a good idea here. -Pengortm (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You say that but having read through the entire article I wasn't able to find any "integrated" criticism. The article reads like it was written by some pro wage-gap group there are no counter arguments provided only those in support. The Wage-Gap is not some kind of scientific fact its mostly a a theory based on coupling loose statistics together to support a narrative. There is plenty of real world criticism of it but just not in this echo chamber of cyber space known as Wikipedia. It is most definitely one sided and it needs a good criticism section. OldBolshevik (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What particular criticisms are missing or where you thinking would make good additions? JEM1406a (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this sort of stuff: ? BTW, in the UK there is no so-called gender pay gap. It's illegal, and has been for a long time, for men and women to be paid different amounts for doing the same work. What we do have, however, is a gender earnings gap. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding criticism of the pay gap. One should always strive for WP:NPOV by removing biased content or adding opposing information. Having a "criticism" section would be very appropriate. Wretchskull (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stand alone criticism sections, especially new ones, are generally discouraged. Surprised you didn’t know that. Relevant information should be worked into the rest of the text. That being said I’m not convinced by the argument that there is currently a NPOV issue here, can you elaborate on your argument? You appear to have added a template to the page which is not supported by this talk page section. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to be more specific than that. Per WP:CSECTION, criticism sections are generally discouraged, so the absence of one certainly isn't a NPOV issue itself.  If you feel there's a significant perspective that isn't included you will have to specify it and demonstrate its importance with sources comparable in quality and weight to what's already in the article.  Note that the lead does note the difference between the adjusted and unadjusted wage gap (which is the main crux, I think, of the "criticisms" you want included) and doesn't even mention reasons for the gap at all.  The "reasons" section does list reasons but is careful to note the complexity of the issue and does not seem at all one-sided. The basic existence of a raw (unadjusted) wage gap or a very slight adjusted wage gap are not matters of serious dispute - they're straightforward statistics - so it doesn't make sense to demand criticism of those (nor does such WP:RS criticism exist, although some of the more opinionated criticism of the adjusted-vs-unadjusted gap is worded loosely enough that it might mistakenly give the impression otherwise.)  --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thats not true, see the official statistics of your government “The gender pay gap among all employees was 15.5% in 2020, down from 17.4% in 2019.” Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also just FYI I don’t believe that howstuffworks.com is a WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I did some more research and got to a different conclusion. I have some secondary journals, studies and statistics, they point to the fact that the gender way gap exists, but for a valid reason (i.e on average men working longer hours, more dangerous jobs, etc). This is quite a big viewpoint and is definitely WP:DUE. I can show the sources and perhaps discuss the material with other editors here to see how to add it and where. What do you think? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is literally what is meant by the difference between the "adjusted" and "non-adjusted" wage gaps, with the caveat that you described it as "valid", which is not WP:NPOV, since it's a value judgment. The article discusses the reasons and the difference between the two gaps already in the lead and the "reasons" section; but the important thing to understand is that that difference is already an integral part of the understanding and study of the gender-pay gap, something every WP:RS discussing it broadly agrees on, and is no way a "criticism" or a matter of serious dispute. See eg. where the article says The non-adjusted gender pay gap is not itself a measure of discrimination. Rather, it combines differences in the average pay of women and men to serve as a barometer of comparison. Differences in pay are caused by occupational segregation (with more men in higher paid industries and women in lower paid industries), vertical segregation (fewer women in senior, and hence better paying positions), ineffective equal pay legislation, women’s overall paid working hours, and barriers to entry into the labor market (such as education level and single parenting rate). Some variables that help explain the non-adjusted gender pay gap include economic activity, working time, and job tenure. Essentially the same thing, but in far more neutral language. --Aquillion (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Sorry if it came as blunt, I'm used to black or white answers. Wretchskull (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021
add:
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That is a lot of to base off primary sources. Most of the prose seems to be original research or synth. You should seek out secondary sources that cover the primary sources you're trying to use and made your prose in what those secondary sources say. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Reasons
Sectoral segregation is main reason for the gender wage gap, as women are disproportionally high represented in low-paying sectors, like care and education and high representation of men in high-paying sectors such as finance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) Women prioritize a Work-Life Balance, thus, averagely, women work less hours in paid work than men, consequently, women spend time more in unpaid/house work. In feminism theories these concepts are referred to as public/productive (paid and seen) work and private/ [|reproductive labor] that is done in private/domestic sphere. The wage level is influenced by one's place in the hierarchy: women make up fewer than 10% of CEOs at Fortune 500 firms. Managers became the group with the greatest disparities in hourly wages in the EU, with women paying 23% less than men. In some cases, women are paid less than men for similar work due to discriminatory objectives.

Addition to:

Consequences for women’s pension
Pension inequality is closely related upon the wage pay gap, systemic discrimination, bias and gender norms in society. In 2020 women in OECD countries receive on average 25% smaller pension than men. The average gender pension gap in Germany, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands exceeds 40%, while the average in Denmark, Slovak Republic and Estonia is less than 10%. Therefore, pension gap varies significantly across the OECD countries.

Pension inequality is based upon occupational segregation, women working in lower paid jobs, higher likelihood for part time work and career breaks due to children and reproductive work. Due to income inequalities between men and women, significant gender differences in pension benefits are unavoidable, since the general wage gap as well as the time not paid into the pension system reduces the average women’s pension significantly. LeaAnton (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, you might want to read Wikipedia's policies on Original Research WP:OR, Reliable Sources WP:RS (statistica and ILO (advocacy org) are NOT Reliable Sources), and look for Independent Sources WP:IS. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the Freakonomics podcast a reliable source?
Recently I removed some material sourced to the Freakonomics podcast that has since been re-added. I continue to think that the Freakonomics podcast is not a reliable source. It's a WP:SPS that, while it is hosted by an expert, doesn't undergo any kind of peer review or fact-checking AFAICT. Plus economics is famously a discipline where experts can disagree wildly on some topics, so I doubt the reliability of citing facts to individual experts rather than the studies that originally established those facts. Loki (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Freakonomics Radio podcast is a WP:SECONDARY source in the statement that I re-added: That statement is sourced also to an NBER paper; the statement is fully supported by the paper's Abstract.


 * 2) Per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". So the addition of a statement by Claudia Goldin (properly ATTRIBUTED to a NOTABLE person "She is a co-director of the NBER's Gender in the Economy Study Group ... Goldin's research covers a wide range of topics, including the female labor force, the gender gap in earnings...) doesn't matter where she made that statement, it could have been on her own blog.


 * 3) As a last comment, economics facts stated by Steven Levitt would be considered Reliable, just like facts stated by Paul Krugman in his NYT opinion columns. I would agree with you about facts stated by Stephen J. Dubner, that they should be sourced to the studies they come from. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand the context of the Freakonomics podcast they don’t do original research but talk about research thats been done by others or that they’ve published themselves in a journal. This means that for everything covered by the Freakonomics podcast they’re providing a higher quality source than themselves. I’m not saying don’t use them, but I am saying that 99% of the time you’re better off citing the underlying study than the podcast. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Rosalsky paper, it's a working paper, on a single case study, covered on one podcast; it seems WP:UNDUE to devote an entire paragraph to it and weigh it equal to comprehensive papers examining pay gap as a whole, especially since (as written) the paragraph was essentially pulling one part of it out and presenting it as a major, decisive study. Devoting half of the "Adjusting for different causes" subsection to this one working paper is absurd - if we're going to talk about alternative causes, we should find broader survey papers, not throw in one random case study because it happened to be featured on a podcast. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Goldin interview, The actual WP:WEIGHT here comes from Goldin; I'm not convinced the text even accurately summarized that interview, but even aside from that, we should look for stuff she's written to get a more complete and accurate view of her opinions. Here's a few (she is quite prolific on the topic and her views are not some sort of inscrutable secret):
 * Relative to men, women receive lower wages and are employed in lower paid and more menial occupations.
 * The gender earnings gap is a shifting statistic. It widens with age, especially in the 15 to 20 years after school leaving. It expands more for those who are married and even more for those with young children.
 * Women work in occupations that are different from those of men and get paid less for apparently the same personal and job characteristics.
 * She has written a lot about reasons for the wage gap; and it feels like someone insufficiently familiar with the topic to understand what she was talking about in the interview misunderstood what she said while she was discussing that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I took the time to read the interview and provide what I think is a more accurate summary of Goldin's view. Happy to discuss and/or work with anyone to refine the text if necessary. As I stated in my initial edit summary earlier today, the fact that the interview is essentially WP:SELFPUB was not the real problem here. Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not in principle against citing audio or video interview comments by recognized experts, but I would generally prefer that we cite their actual published works or statements that are put in writing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear: I would also support adding the points/sources that Aquillion has quoted. Seems like a more thorough discussion of Goldin's work (discussing her actual results, not mischaracteriztions) could improve this article quite a bit. Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * (mostly a reply to Aquillion) - I don't support removing reliably sourced content just because someone thinks that there should be better content available. The Uber study is a very good study because that is what scientists call a "natural experiment" - where the normal cultural HIRING and PROMOTION prejudices are absent, by the nature of that "gig" work platform.


 * (just to Aquillion) Regarding your Goldin quotes, those appear to me as cherry-picking by you to support a point, rather than including the whole picture by explaining the CAUSE in each of those instances: For example: "Relative to men, women receive lower wages and are employed in lower paid and more menial occupations." is a rather simple-minded observation of a phenomenon that doesn't include what is driving that. I am unfamiliar with Goldin's work, but from her Wiki page and Generalrelative's new summary of her interview, I would think that we could include those sources you chose WITH HER FINDINGS OF CAUSE for those observations.  Maybe I misunderstood you...you said: "She has written a lot about reasons for the wage gap;" - yes, let's include those. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Uber study, the problem is that that is basically just your opinion that it is so important. For what it's worth, I strenuously disagree; I suggest you maybe read natural experiment - natural experiments are of very little use outside of highly specific circumstances due to their non-controlled nature.  And even beyond that that doesn't substantiate the implicit argument you're making (central to whether it should be given so much weight on this page) about whether it is a vitally important study about the gender pay gap as a whole.
 * Regarding Goldin, the bits I cited were often the key points of her abstracts, ie. the broad summary of her conclusions, whereas the original quote in the article seems to have been entirely pulled out of context in order to make it sound like she didn't believe the gender pay gap existed at all. The point of the quotes above was to make it clear that that characterization is absurd and simply not reconcilable with her stated conclusions. I have no objections to Generalrelative's rewrite (which I think is roughly in line with the quotes above), I was just underlining how clearly wrong the original version was. --Aquillion (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of Aquillion's points here accord with my understanding as well. Without scholarly secondary coverage I'm not sure that the Uber study is DUE to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. I would however support an expanded discussion of Goldin's work, which is clearly seminal for the field. Building off of the three quotes above would be a great place to start. The fact that these quotations are the opening lines of each paper shows that the author considers these points foundational to her argument. Generalrelative (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Uber study was discussed in a secondary source by a notable economist who discusses these types of studies, that should qualify as a secondary scholarly source. I don't know WHICH section in this article it should be in, or whether it should be so "prominent" but I think it definitely deserves inclusion somewhere, even if at the end of the article.  You are suggesting to include Goldin's work as primary sourced material, (where is the secondary SCHOLARLY source for her work?) which I'm ok with, but I wanted to point that out in this context relative to the Uber study.--- Avatar317 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is very through and detailed. The writers clearly know what they are talking about. This article is very organized and has ,any, many sections and subsections. However, all of them are necessary. The sections that the article are broken into are very appropriate. I also think its very interesting that they broke it up into different countries, I think this is very important because the statistics will be different everywhere. Every section has an appropriate amount of text, and no section takes over the others. I also think that they presented this information in an unbiased way, I wouldn't be able to tell what the authors opinions are. I really don't think there is anything I could say to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidybohne (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cardinal0205.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M.nie. Peer reviewers: Dmlee26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilyyy le. Peer reviewers: Emilyyy le.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fatimahali.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YushuangLL. Peer reviewers: YushuangLL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bryson.jones.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ann-Sophie 97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 October 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qhdud12. Peer reviewers: Qhdud12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 December 2018 and 20 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kristinaarel, Amolina02, ChrisChann1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniloHelber. Peer reviewers: DaniloHelber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maoyi.95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vin0beats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 15 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vin0beats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jfhennessy98. Peer reviewers: Mattmgc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kassandrarojas4. Peer reviewers: Sgarza99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kbm6cb, Peytonblakemore, EmilyInman. Peer reviewers: Peytonblakemore, Cassidybohne, Ckaraluch, Michael Henderson Burt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ivneet Randhawa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty
— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Historical Perspective Section
The first paragraph is very poorly written, sounding more like rhetoric than description. The transition “fast-forward to 2016” should be removed, as well as “79 cents on the dollar” should be changed to “In 2016” and “79%.” Finally, “equity” should be changed for “equality” at the end of the paragraph. 73.133.195.157 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree the paragraph was problematic. I gave it a go, not hewing exactly to your suggestions. Would appreciate a second look. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)