Talk:On the Basis of Sex

Shelbster03 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Link
Hi. Two times I've added following link. Two times you've taken it down. I explained the podcast has a place on this page because it adds cultural context to the movie. I ask that you consider adding it this third time. Here I'm assuming the See Also acts as a space for people to reflect and think more deeply about a topic/movie. Thanks, j


 * The Ginsburg Tapes,a podcast about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court—before she became #NotoriousRBG. Specifically, from 1972-1978, Ginsburg argued six cases in the Supreme Court. In each case, she and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project brought constitutional challenges to laws treating men and women differently. Ginsburg’s goal was to show the ways in which laws that seemed on their face to benefit women actually perpetuated stereotypes and held women back from full participation in American life. For all six cases, Lauren Moxley breaks down the real recordings of the oral arguments.  The tapes allow listeners to be a fly on the wall, to teleport to that moment in history. In each episode, Lauren talks about history, effective advocacy, constitutional change, the power of the Supreme Court, and gender equality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.M.Moxley (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems with your edit. First, you appear to have a personal connection to the podcast, which would mean you have a conflict of interest and should not insert the link yourself but suggest it here so other editors can decide if it should be included or not. Second, the description you have included is excessively long and promotionally worded, and third it appears to have been directly copied from the podcast's website which is not ok. Melcous (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mr/Ms. Melcous,

Interesting. What aspect of the description is promotionally worded? From my perspective, this is an educational, historical podcast and not a commercial event like the movie. The podcast adds depth to the movie and I shared it w/ the goal of adding historical context. I hadn't realized Wikipedia had become so hostile and unwelcoming. I remember talking with Jimmy Wales when he started this project, and I had a different idea about its mission.But I've been gone for a while.

If you'll give the podcast a listen, I think you'll see this is a deep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.M.Moxley (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, given that the wording is directly copied from the website, its not hard to see that it was written so as to 'sell' the podcast to listeners. If you look at pretty much any other external link on the articles you have been adding this to, or any other well written article, you will see that they are very brief descriptions, one short line usually, with no attempt to explain, promote, or even describe how 'good' they are. Its also worth noting that given this is a brand new podcast, with one episode released, alongside your apparent relationship to the host, makes it looks like your primary goal here is to promote the podcast, which is clearly not what wikipedia is for. But as I said, its up to other neutral editors to decide if the link has value beyond promoting the podcast. I don't think it does. Melcous (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 *  I hadn't realized Wikipedia had become so hostile and unwelcoming -- that's a hostile sweeping generalization that casts you in a bad light. I remember talking with Jimmy Wales when he started this project, and I had a different idea about its mission. -- since you're such great buds, maybe you should chat with him again ... you might accept Wikipedia policy coming from him. I would note that, in addition to what others have said, your link has nothing to do with the movie. If it's suitable for Wikipedia at all, it might have a place in the Ruth Bader Ginsberg article. -- Jibal (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)