Talk:Sexism/Archive 7

Lead
The definition in the lead does not reflect how scholars theorize sexism. It is not just individual discrimination or prejudice. I propose we update this page to properly reflect widely accepted uses of sexism by scholars, not what Merrian Websters says. MW is not a valid source of scholarly definitions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean change it to the jargonistic definition used within some academic circles. Jargon is a useful short hand for use within a subculture but does not reflect a world view. Merrian Websters reflects common usage and the common understanding of the word. A section discussing the jargonistic definition is in order but not appropriate for the definition used in the lead. CSDarrow (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, we turn to experts for definitions of concepts, not the dictionary. Let me know if they use the dictionary definition for homophobia, self-esteem, or tsunami.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to regurgitate definitions.


 * Yes Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a venue for giving preeminence to particular subcultural definitions of words and concepts. Both OED and Websters are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and are unrivaled experts on the meanings of our words. CSDarrow (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say that changes to the lead would be premature if we are planning substantial changes to the body. I think this discussion should be held off untill we think we have a better article. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Subcultural definitions". Fun words, but nonsensical.  The definition should reflect how the term is used in sociology and psychology (i.e., the fields that study it). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Subcultural definitions" are not "Fun words, but nonsensical", the phrase entirely makes sense and refers to to Jargon. Wikipedia is not a niche encyclopedia for certain subject areas. A section referring to their definition is certainly in order, but our words and concepts are not defined for us entirely by sociologists and psychologists.


 * Wikipedia reflects a World view and is not in the business of creating one. The changing of a word's definition, or even its removal from our language, is the pastime of social engineers and hegemons. Wikipedia is neither, though sometimes I wonder.
 * CSDarrow (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article on schizophrenia does not have the dictionary definition in the lead. Why?  Because the dictionary and lay people are not experts on it.  In fact, I've not seen any article with a dictionary definition in the lead.  When writing about science, we reflect what the scientific community says.  See WP:SCICON. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Entries are guided by the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and not by the content of other pages. The word Sexism is more than just a technical term requiring professional expertise to comment on. As a concept and as a word it is an important part of our common language. This, together with its common meaning, must be reflected in the entry. To do otherwise is tantamount to changing the meanings of our words; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tool of change. CSDarrow (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the first pillar. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the Second Pillar and Neutral Point of View. Defining Sexism as that from a specialized academic subculture is not what Wikipedia is about, it is called Coat Tracking. CSDarrow (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no definition has been proposed, this argument is really more of a waste of time. I'm sure both of you will agree that Wikipedia is a collection of what reliable sources say about a subject matter.  As such Merriam Webster is a reliable source, however it is not the only reliable source.  And if we expand the lead, and the definition based on other reliable sources that is just an improvement to the encyclopedia.  We're not here to choose what definition is the right one, we're here to record what definitions are used in reliable sources, and give them equal weight dependent on the prevalence in such sources.  That is WP:NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see you point, but I have a good idea where this is going. Sexism will be defined narrowly as per that in some academic circles, so allowing others to tote their particular World view. Sexism is not a technical term from a particular academic discipline, it is part of our common language. I don't care if the definition comes from a dictionary or not, just that it reflects the generally understood meaning of the word. Sections on more specific definitions are entirely in order. CSDarrow (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet the definitions I refer to are more board than the narrow definition of the dictionary. Again, Racism shows how this should be done. Kyohyi, I will WP:SOFIXIT soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are to edit the lead you should bring your suggestion to Talk first. CSDarrow (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what this is... EvergreenFir (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to contribute but it looks like I have been Shut Down, Here and Here. Best of luck. CSDarrow (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I avoid this article because of the consistent WP:Advocacy POV-pushing that goes on at it, including the state of the current lead. I'm only here now because EvergreenFir has commented, and I have found EvergreenFir to be a good Wikipedia editor, though still learning the ropes with regard to Wikipedia ways; for example, we do use dictionaries as sources to define some topics in the lead, and it is fine to do so for some topics. I personally wouldn't compare sexism to a scientific topic, but I take it that EvergreenFir means "social sciences" with regard to sexism, if calling sexism a scientific topic. Either way, if you were truly dedicated to the Merriam-Webster definition of sexism, CSDarrow, you would include all of that definition, which explicitly makes it clear that sexism especially refers to women; the "especially : unfair treatment of women" and "especially : discrimination against women" parts of the Merriam-Webster definition have been conveniently excluded from the lead. You can call that definition narrow and jargon as much as you want, but that is the prevalent definition of sexism in almost all dictionaries and the vast majority of scholarly sources; this article, which focuses far more on girls/women than on boys/men, is a testament to that; so the lead fails to even accurately summarize the article and adhere to WP:LEAD because Apples grow on pines decided that he didn't like that definition here (to him, it's sexism). It's because of such a ridiculous removal that five citations (a bit of WP:Citation overkill) were placed there in the lead to begin with; these were removed by Ongepotchket, who stated, "Clean up. Five dictionary citations in the lede is gratuitous." The reason this article has heavy focus on girls/women is not because of WP:Cherry picking; it's like that because most definitions/research with regard to the term concerns the female sex, which Kevin Gorman, who stated similarly at the Sexualization article, would tell you. But I see that you are familiar with Kevin Gorman. I know that you are also quite familiar with Bbb23, Binksternet and Sonicyouth86...all editors who object to the particular way that you interpret WP:Neutral.


 * WP:Neutral is quite clear that Wikipedia is not concerned with the "unequal" matters in the world and cannot do much about them without creating false balance. The WP:Due weight part of WP:Neutral makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections) that there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources. Wikipedia follows the mainstream; it does not try to create the mainstream. I am all for making an article more neutral, but not to the point where we are attempting to give "equal validity." I will always give more weight to what the significant majority of sources state. The only time that the majority should not get more weight is when it is a small majority. The WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay is right on-target; in part, it states, "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. ... On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. 'Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.'" Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * All I can say is that it's a bit of a shame that you decided to resort to passive-aggressive smear-campaigning here instead of simply talking this through. This isn't about "Righting Great Wrongs". This is about the definition of the word "sexism". Sex-ism, not an-ti-wo-man-ism, or whatever new word you may wish to create. --Apples grow on pines (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Apples grow on pines, not a smear campaign; just honestly describing what has been going at this article. Your edit was indeed a "Righting Great Wrongs" edit, and it indeed goes against the WP:Due weight policy. You can disagree with that all you want, but that is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. And I spoke of nothing about an-ti-wo-man-ism or any word I want to create; I spoke of how the term is most commonly defined. Do the vast majority of sources especially apply the term to girls and women instead of boys and men? Yes, they do. And the lead should reflect that, just like this article does...because that's how it's mostly covered in sources (vastly). Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Flyer22: If you find the mainstream journals of which you speak (n.b. not to be confused with online dictionaries) that specify the definition of "sexism" as "sexism aimed at women", please be sure to forward them my way. Until that happens, I firmly believe that the lead should remain NPOV. There are enough mentions of what the factual situation in the world is already - we don't need it as part of the definition. Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So now you are going to act like only dictionaries apply the term sexism especially to women and that scholarly sources don't? If you truly believe that and it's not just you being disingenuous, then you clearly are not familiar with the preponderance of sources on the topic of sexism. It most certainly is not only feminist literature that makes it quite clear that the term sexism is especially applied to girls and women, and I most certainly did not refer to that matter as only a dictionary matter; I also stated "the vast majority of scholarly sources." Again, this article shows exactly what I am talking about -- the lead that is not WP:Lead-compliant in this regard and what this topic mostly focuses on (by far). You are also mistaken if you think that all we need are mainstream journals to document that matter. No, mainstream books and other scholarly works suffice just fine, like this article shows. Your definition of WP:Neutral is in stark contrast to Wikipedia's definition of it, and is also a WP:Lead violation, as I've already made quite clear above. Many at the WP:Neutral talk page would also make that quite clear. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "You are also mistaken if you think that all we need are mainstream journals to document that matter." - the "mainstream journals" comment came from you, not me. I'm holding you up to your own words and... that's somehow a mistake. It's difficult to take you seriously when you can't remain consistent with your own train of thought. Apples grow on pines (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "mainstream journals" comment comes from the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay that I cited in addition to stating that "the prevalent definition of sexism in almost all dictionaries and the vast majority of scholarly sources ... focuses far more on girls/women than on boys/men"; so I have been consistent. Holding me to something that is plainly evident, even by the abundance of WP:Reliable sources in the Wikipedia Sexism article, is a flawed approach, as flawed as your assertion that my argument on this matter has not been consistent. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so we're supposed to follow an essay that explicitly tells us to use mainstream journals, except we should ignore the bit where mainstream journals need to be used, and that's somehow consistent. As I said, if you ever find these, please forward them my way. I'd be genuinely happy to learn if the definition of the word changes (since it'll necessitate creating a new gender-neutral term), but until that happens I view this matter as settled. Apples grow on pines (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we're supposed to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including its WP:Neutral policy. Essays are just added advice. Not surprising that you focused on the essay aspect of my post instead of actual policy. You obviously cannot follow the WP:Neutral policy correctly or at least not consistently. As for your consistency argument, it makes no sense, much like your interpretation of WP:Neutral...which explicitly tells you that the majority view/what is covered in the majority of sources gets more WP:Due weight than the minority view/what is covered in the minority of sources (that applies to the lead as well), among other things that you have tried to sidestep. The only thing settled on this matter is your need to violate WP:Neutral and WP:Lead. It remains that sexism is covered with regard to girls and women far more than it is covered with regard to boys and men. It remains that the WP:Lead does not appropriately summarize this article, in part because it does not even address the fact that sexism is a topic that especially concerns girls and women. Let's see how long you get away with the WP:Neutral and WP:Lead violations at this article; it'll be interesting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that's why five citations were placed in the lede. I now regret removing them. Ongepotchket (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Ongepotchket, nothing in this matter is your fault. Apples grow on pines would have clearly removed that wording regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Not a smear campaign at all. What's next, telling me to check my privilege? Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, In places I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean. What I trying to avoid is a Social Science jargonistic definition of Sexism being the one that solely controls the content of this page. It is jargon from a subculture and its sole use would violate WP:UNDUE. The word 'Sexism' is an important part of our language and imo its common meaning should feature prominently on this page. This does not exclude the discussion of other interpretations of the word at all, and I am not suggesting dictionary definitions control the content of this page either. However it should not be forgotten that dictionaries are unrivaled authorities of the commonly understood meanings of our words; their definitions in one form or another should feature prominently in the lead. I am attempting to push things in the direction of appropriate encyclopedic balance.

My other, and perhaps major, concern, is the amount of Coat Tracking and Soap Boxing. The source of this is the assumption that a gender experiencing a relative disadvantage is because of Sexism. Before a topic can be added to this page a connection between it and Sexism has to be established, with the entry being of appropriate weight. CSDarrow (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This article IS sexist
I've read some articles on here in my time but this one is the most unbalanced, anti-male propaganda article I've ever read. Not only is the article written by feminists with an anti male agenda. Any ounce of male discrimination or articles gets removed in an instant. The article on male victims of domestic violence, circumcision, sexism against men in the media and male trafficing. Any gender neutral term is changed to 'women' for the victim and 'male' as the instigator. If the mods can't sort this article out, I 'll be forced to report it.85.210.184.205 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems that you need to read my initial post in the section above. But you likely have already; interesting that you showed up after my recent comment to an editor in that section. This article is a reflection of the preponderance of sources on the topic. Wikipedia's WP:Neutral policy gives WP:Due weight to the majority -- how a topic is generally covered in WP:Reliable sources. You can obviously go ahead and report, to whatever spot on Wikipedia you think is appropriate, but it will not help your cause. Creating false balance is against the WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight policy (specifically its Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections). Feminists are not at all the only sources that give especial weight to girls and women when it comes to sexism. The vast majority of sources do, with obvious/good reason -- it's a general fact of society; girls and women being treated in most of the ways mentioned in this article far outweighs boys and men having been treated in such ways. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 hit the nail on the head. This isn't the oppression Olympics.  Also, I've yet to read any RS that says circumcision of boys is part of structural inequality disadvantaging men.  EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Earp talks about a "notorious 'double standard' regarding male versus female genital cutting that prevails in Anglophone societies" here. If you'd like more refs #20-22 in that paper are quite relevant too. Hope that helps.Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that misandry and anti-male sexism are addressed several times in the article and the article does acknowledge that sexism does occur against the male gender. I would also like to point out that if anyone has a right to complain about being underrepresented in comparison to the amount of sexism they face I would probably point to the transgender community but you didn't even think to address that did you 85.210.184.205. And if you want to go through the article and add more gender neutral language feel free unless it is a quote or goes against a specific source no one can stop you.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'm sure that it's somehow interesting to you that there are other people that do not share your views out there, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't make unsubstantiated accusations like that. I disagree with you on the lead issue, but I believe I've already made it quite clear that I think the article's content is fair. Please stop harassing me. Much appreciated. Oh, and while we have the displeasure of talking to each other again, may I ask your reason for removing the link to Men's Rights Movement from "See also"? Was it just collateral damage caused by you reversing all edits by the IP above, or do you genuinely think it's not related to sexism and not worth being "also seen" by people reading this article? Apples grow on pines (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apples grow on pines, following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not about sharing my views, unless sharing Wikipedia's views is called sharing my views. You don't want to properly adhere to Wikipedia's WP:Neutral policy, instead interpreting it in the exact way it advises against, okay then. But don't expect to get far with that type of interpretation on Wikipedia with editors like me around. Like I essentially noted in the Lead discussion above, you should take some pointers from Kevin Gorman on topics like this. Your new user page design about neutrality is obviously a response to what you and I have discussed about that policy. Difference between you and me on that policy is that I follow it properly each and every time; none of that inappropriate "balancing aspects" and "giving equal validity" editing that you engage in. There is nothing unsubstantiated in my "00:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)" post above. And I have not been harassing you; take note that you are the one who has sought me out in this section in a confrontational manner. You also repeatedly sought me out in the Lead discussion above. I care not to seek you out; my initial linking of your username in that section was more so to allow editors to click on your user account and find out more about you if they so desired. Take this matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) if you are certain that I have been harassing you (you might also want to read WP:HARASSMENT), and see how far that gets you. And my reverting the IP was collateral damage indeed, and further addressed here on Binksternet's talk page. I care not if the Mens rights movement link is included. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we disagree about your interpretation of policies, which is certainly your own view. We are reading the same words and trying our best to follow them, and yet we reach different conclusions - that is a matter of views. So far I've gone quite far with my interpretation of neutrality, despite your attempts to be as unpleasant as possible about it - mostly because you're arguing by assertion and not trying to provide much in the way of backing your claims up. That's okay, it makes my job easier. It's just a shame that it stops us from having an intellectually honest discussion. As for harassment: fair enough, perhaps I'm reading your intentions wrong. From my point of view, the tone you've been using when describing my edit, as well as the immediate jump to a conclusion that it's "interesting" that someone else is confronting you (which, to me, carries the implication that the two of us are the same person) are ad hominem attacks. It does appear to me like you're targetting me personally, which is why I dubbed it as harassment. It's a shame that your resolution of this problem is "I don't care, go report me", but that's your decision. If you don't want to be civil, I'll just avoid you - no real harm done to either of us. Thank you for the clarification on the link deletion. I'll restore it now. Apples grow on pines (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes, my user page reflects my experiences with the community. You are part of the community, and your interactions with me will reflect my views on it. I'm not sure why you find my user page's mention of this notable. I intentionally made it impersonal - a courtesy apparently unknown to you. Apples grow on pines (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "[my] interpretation of the policies." I have clearly cited the policy, and pointed to the specific parts (the sub-policies) that you ignore and fail to adhere to, especially WP:Due weight and its aspects. In the Lead discussion above, I stated, "Your definition of WP:Neutral is in stark contrast to Wikipedia's definition of it, and is also a WP:Lead violation, as I've already made quite clear above. Many at the WP:Neutral talk page would also make that quite clear." It seems that you indeed need those many people at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to explain to you what WP:Neutral means. WP:Neutral does not mean "Oh, I am going to leave out the fact that sexism especially concerns women because I think it's sexism to note that piece, no matter that the source supporting that line specifically states that sexism especially concerns women." So right now, not only are you engaging in WP:Neutral and WP:Lead violations, you are misrepresenting the source. As for backing up my claims, the WP:Neutral policy backs up my claims with regard to how Wikipedia treats neutrality. The abundance of scholarly sources on sexism, such as here at Google Books and here at Google Scholar, back up my claims with regard to which sex the topic of sexism mostly concerns. Even a simple Google search does. How can one rationally back up a claim that is so clearly fact/supported? The WP:Burden is on you in this regard. What proof do you have that sexism applies equally to men and women, that it applies equally to boys and girls? Pulling out a few sources to support your claim won't cut it. Even pulling out many won't, since Wikipedia gives WP:Due weight to what the preponderance of sources state. And what do those preponderance of sources state on this topic? That sexism is an especial concern for girls and women, far more than it is for boys and men. This has been a fact throughout history and it is still a fact today. Like I stated in the Lead section above, "If you truly believe [that sexism does not especially concern girls and women], and it's not just you being disingenuous, then you clearly are not familiar with the preponderance of sources on the topic of sexism."


 * You speak of "intellectually honest discussion"; if you were truly interested in having such a discussion with regard to this matter, you would not be keeping up the pretenses -- acting as though sexism does not concern human females far more than it concerns human males. I don't feel the need to debate policy, not usually; I usually simply follow policy. So as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is quite an "intellectually honest discussion" on my part. As for your accusations with regard my civility toward you, misapplication of the WP:Neutral policy is one of things that I do not tolerate. I am tired of seeing editors failing to adhere to its WP:Due weight aspect and therefore misapplying what is "neutral." Those who engage in WP:Activism is another matter that I cannot stand. Therefore, I have been very stern/have taken a "no nonsense" approach with regard to you on this matter. You see that as incivility; I don't quite view it the same way. As for your user page, you made it soon after one of your arguments with me (meaning one of the ones in the Lead discussion above), so I highly doubt your impersonal claim on that, but okay then. All that stated, I admit that I should tone down the agitation in my posts when responding to you about this topic, and I will make an effort to do that from now on if we continue to respond to each other on this matter. On a side note: I will now ping one of the few editors I greatly respect at this site, who is also one of the ones who understands how Wikipedia applies WP:Neutral -- Johnuniq; he has often helped me with Wikipedia matters (and often continues to do so), is usually calm in his approach and can perhaps better explain my thoughts on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First things first, I'd like to address your comment on me "keeping up the pretenses" - I looked back through my comments here, and I'd like to apologise for the impression I may have made. It is absolutely not my intention to claim that sexism does not apply to women to a greater extent than it does to men in the modern world. I am interested in talking this through in an intellectually honest fashion. I will try to change my tone of speech to reflect this.


 * Unfortunately, any written policy is subject to interpretation - that is unavoidable in any community, because there is no such thing as objectivity. Keep in mind the following about WP:TE (which encompasses WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS): "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." On top of that, there's WP:BURO (Yes, policy is meant to be taken seriously. No, its letter is not infallible.). Policy can (and will) be misunderstood or understood in a different fashion when the letter of it is ambiguous in places. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:LEAD are not Wikipedia policies. The first is an opinion essay, the second is a guideline that is meant to be "applied with common sense". WP:NPOV is pretty much the only policy that applies here afaik, and while I believe my edit complied with it (and that your complaint about it does not), I'm happy to be corrected on that, but you simply restating that I'm wrong over and over won't help.


 * To my understanding of WP:MOSBEGIN, the opening paragraph should be neutral and not overly specific. In my view, including the information about which genders applies to and to what degrees is needlessly specific and not neutral. It projected on the whole article, making it seem like it's all supposed to be about sexism directed against women. It's not. The article is about sexism, in all of its forms, and with due weight given to its various incarnations. Granted, this means that the volume of content about sexism towards women will be far greater than that towards men (and the article obviously reflects that), there is no need to give the reader this initial signal. The equal validity/due weight issue is a spectrum and not a binary thing, and I believe that you're taking it to an extreme. The article (as it stands with the disputed edit) does absolutely nothing to imply equal validity or severity of different types of sexism - it simply prevents the reader from approaching the article with unnecessary bias, which could lead them to unduly dismiss he fact that there are other (smaller, but existent) sides to the issue.


 * Appealing to WP:BURO, it is not helpful to smack me down with multiple policies and essays. Explain why you believe the article has suffered from removing the sentence. The lack of the sentence in the lead does not give any additional weight (due or undue) to sexism aimed at people who are not female. I would be much less opposed to it if it was worded in a way that "report[s] what people have said about it rather than what is so". Sexism against women is more thoroughly documented, and therefore deserves more coverage on Wikipedia. However, this does not mean we should state that sexism against women is more of an issue than sexism against men - that, in my view - would be engaging in the debate, not describing it. Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my somewhat hostile tone toward you as well, Apples grow on pines. Yes, let's move on. Stating that "Unfortunately, any written policy is subject to interpretation" is, to me, perhaps your way of stating that you apply WP:Ignore all rules much too often. WP:Ignore all rules should not be used as en excuse to do whatever we want at this site; otherwise, every Wikipedia editor can shove aside policies and guidelines each and every time in favor of WP:Ignore all rules. The WP:Neutral policy is pretty straightforward and simple to follow; the only reason it is misinterpreted as much as it is...is because too many editors (you included) think that WP:Neutral means "neutral" in the common way that the term is applied in the everyday world. It does not; it means "neutral" with regard WP:Due weight, which translates to "how the topic is generally covered in WP:Reliable sources." That is not my interpretation; that is made explicitly clear by WP:Neutral and its subsections. As for essays, to reiterate what I noted in the Lead discussion above, essays are simply added advice. I don't need to be reminded that an essay is not a guideline or a policy; if I did, I would not have pointed out that it is an essay by stating "the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay." Nor do I need to be told that WP:Lead is a guideline. Acting like a Wikipedia guideline is something that is trivial is the wrong approach, however; Wikipedia guidelines are generally followed by experienced Wikipedians (and they should generally be followed). This matter is not about Wikipedia being a bureaucracy (WP:BURO); it is about simply following the WP:Neutral policy and the WP:Lead guideline, unless there is a valid reason to ignore that policy and guideline (WP:Ignore all rules). I see no valid reason to follow WP:Ignore all rules in this case; excluding from the lead that sexism especially concerns girls and women is not improving Wikipedia. It is leaving out a core aspect of this topic, an aspect displayed by the preponderance of sources on the topic of sexism, because one or more editors think that it's sexism to note this fact and that noting it is therefore non-neutral. I have not been "simply restating that [you're] wrong over and over": I've been consistently explaining to you why you are wrong on this matter. I cannot understand what you are misinterpreting about WP:Neutral, when it is clear that we give more weight to the majority view. I cannot understand how you do not see that it is a WP:Lead violation to not properly summarize in the lead the "sexism especially concerns girls and women" part of this article. That is what this article mostly concerns -- girls and women -- and it is not because of WP:Cherry picking. It's just a matter of how the vast majority of sources cover this topic. Therefore, the lead should summarize this aspect; even mentioning the historical aspect would be an improvement.


 * You speak of the WP:MOSBEGIN aspect of WP:Lead. Yes, WP:MOSBEGIN mentions neutrality. But again, Wikipedia applies neutrality differently than the way it is commonly used in the everyday world. This is why I state that you are violating WP:Neutral. You are additionally violating WP:Lead, because, again, the lead should adequately summarize this article/topic. It should therefore note which sex the topic of sexism especially concerns; that sex is the female sex. Noting this aspect is not stating that the article is only "supposed to be about sexism directed against women." It's not stating that sexism only concerns women. It is only stating a core aspect of the matter -- that it especially concerns women. There is every reason to "give the reader this initial signal"; this is because the female sex is what sexism mostly concerns. The most common definition/aspect of a topic should be covered in the lead, and it should usually be covered in the first line. Not to mention that, according to statistics cited by Wikipedia, most of our readers (a significant portion) do not read past the lead. WP:Lead states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.) The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. ... The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." Leaving out the "sexism is especially a female matter" aspect is not adhering to WP:Lead in any way, and it is depriving our readers of this core fact about sexism.


 * If this article were up for WP:Good article (WP:GA) or WP:Featured article (WP:FA) status, reviewers such as SilkTork would note that the aforementioned aspect you removed from the lead should be in the lead. So, no, I am not taking "[t]he equal validity/due weight issue [to an extreme]"; I am explaining to you why "the equal validity" approach is inappropriate. It is not a case-by-case matter as to whether or not to engage in such editing; it is a don't-do-this matter, explicitly prohibited by the WP:Neutral policy. By leaving the "sexism is especially a female matter" aspect out of the lead, you are engaging in "giving equal validity." And such wording, which again does not respect what the source it is cited to states, is implying that sexism is a matter that affects the sexes to the same degree. The "sexism also applies to males" aspect can and should be added to the lead as well, but Wikipedia should, in fact, state there "that sexism against women is more of an issue than sexism against men" or something to that effect; this is not what you call "engaging in the debate, not describing it." Like WP:VALID (Giving "equal validity") states, "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." Having the "sexism is especially a female matter" aspect in the lead is not unduly legitimizing that aspect; it is giving that aspect due weight because of its vast and usually central coverage in sources on the topic of sexism. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to see your point, but I'm not quite there yet. I do understand what WP:NPOV means. I understood it before I made the edit, too. I'm well aware that objectivity does not exist, and as such we focus on what reliable sources say. However, looking through the Google Scholar and Google Books results you've linked to, I do not see the supposedly evident preponderance of the view you describe. Most sources focus on sexism as a general issue, without singling out any one sex, then there is a large amount of works on the discrimination against women, and then ones about discrimination against men. You are correct in saying that there are more sources that focus on women - that's why I didn't try adding anything about men and giving it undue weight. Most sources, however, appear not to address a specific gender at all (or address both). I could not find back up for your claims in the sources you've provided. Of course, I did not read through the hundreds of thousands of works these searches yield, so it could be that I was just very "lucky" in the subset of resources I've seen, but if the situation is as clear as you say, I would expect to see that reflected in the first few pages of the results. The only category of sources in which the preponderance is as clear as you describe it is dictionaries - but those would only serve as a good source for a "Usage of the term" section in the article (which would be fair to have: colloquially, the word does often refer to female-oriented sexism, specifically). Take example from the Racism article - it does not attempt to describe which ethnicities are most often discriminated against, and yet it manages to give due weight to most instances of racism that I'm aware of. Is that article also non-WP:NPOV/WP:LEAD-compliant? If not, what makes it different? Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As is obvious, I took a long break from this discussion and now I'm back. So... With regard to the Google Books and Google Scholar results I've linked to, I do see that the sources discuss sexism mostly relating to women; the fact that some of them discuss sexism in general does not negate the fact that those same sources either acknowledge that sexism is mostly a female matter or mostly focus on it. Some of them are, in fact, debating and/or trying to analyze whether or not men receive sexism or are affected by it to the same degree (that women are) when they do receive it, which clearly means that sexism being focused on women is the prevalent matter. The same goes for when looking through the simple Google search. The same goes for the preponderance of sources in this article, which, again, is not a matter of WP:Cherry picking. I am not 100% sure how you are reading these sources, but it would be good if you could get full access to several of them and see what they discuss past mentions of sexism in a general sense. Every book and journal I have read on sexism, and I've read many on the topic (with most of these being non-feminism books, mind you, and half being newer works), have either acknowledged that sexism is mostly a female matter (with one or more chapters discussing just that) and/or have mostly focused on sexism with regard to women. It's not about whether or not the sources were objective; it's about about there being far more to state on sexism with regard to women than with regard to men. Right now, it appears that you are implying that females are affected by sexism only by a slight margin more than males are, or only somewhat more than males are, or that sources generally treat the matter like that; this is the type of pretense thing I referred to earlier.


 * As for the Racism article, that is a completely different matter, so much so and with so much more tension than sexism, that it is like comparing apples and oranges. It wouldn't surprise me if it didn't "attempt to describe which ethnicities are most often discriminated against" in the lead. But it actually does, at least in a historical context; its fourth paragraph currently states: "'In history, racism was a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the U.S. in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid. Practices and ideologies of racism are universally condemned by the United Nations in the Declaration of Human Rights. It has also been a major part of the political and ideological underpinning of genocides such as The Holocaust, but also in colonial contexts such as the rubber booms in South America and the Congo, and in the European conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia." So, yes, I would state that its lead is WP:Neutral and WP:Lead compliant. Either way, that is a topic that is clearly more complicated with regard to stating what "race" has received more racism, though the vast majority of people would be inclined (I presume) to state that black people have received the most racism. For sexism, it is not complicated to state which sex has received, and still receives, sexism the most; it is also a matter that is almost always thoroughly the focus in sources on the topic of sexism.


 * To try to get one more person involved in this discussion who very much understands WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight and what a WP:Lead-compliant lead is, I invite FiachraByrne to this discussion. Usually, when FiachraByrne is involved, things to an article get done. FiachraByrne is also a very neutral editor who looks at things from both sides or from various sides. Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a lovely introduction which I hope that I can at least in part live up to. I'll give the article and this talk page section a read through, see what a trawl through some citation indexes might indicate and get back to you over the next couple of days. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See below for analysis of tertiary sources and most cited articles on the topic of sexism. As to whether a source-based analysis indicates that sexism is typically defined as directed predominantly at women, I think the results are pretty clear but you can make your own determination. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is a proposed edit being discussed? There is no reason to establish whether this "article IS sexist" as an abstract exercise—if someone believes wording needs to be improved, that is what should be discussed. It is standard for an article to reflect what reliable sources say, with WP:DUE applied to prevent addition of POV favored by various fringe groups—what text in the article does not comply? Sorry if I missed a proposal in the above dialog. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This article will mostly due to its subject be mostly about Women. However if one does feel that sources about Men and other gender groups (such as Transgender or Intersex people) are not being represented the only thing they need is reliable sources. Instead of complaining that the house is burning down why not get some water and stop the fire. In this case water is reliable sources and the burning is the so-called bias towards only women. Find more sources and the article shall grow. Its really that simple-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no proposed edit here either. About ready to hat/hab the entire section as being WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir, since this discussion is about improving this article, it is not a WP:FORUM discussion. As shown above, this discussion is currently about whether or not the lead should mention that sexism especially effects girls and women, which would be an appropriate summary of a core aspect of this topic/article. So Johnuniq and EvergreenFir, if there is any proposal, that is it. However, obviously not every discussion about improving an article involves a direct proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?

 * Tertiary sources

Most cited papers (Web of Knowledge) Search topic: "sexism"

 * Refs

FiachraByrne (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome job. I think you aptly showed that sexism often refers especially to discrimination and inequality affecting women. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, FiachraByrne. I saw you working on this in your sandbox not too long after I mentioned you in the section; needless to state, you wasted no time. I very much appreciate you taking the time to dig into this. Thanks again. Now it's a matter of getting this core aspect of sexism acknowledged in the lead of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Yeah - I think it would be justified to say that it is normally understood as directed against women. Personally, I'd probably favour a section detailing its broad usage within feminism from the 1970s rather than the detailing of the first usage of the term. I would have thought that feminism would have been the most significant context for understanding the emergence and application of the term. Also, I think the history section could do with a rethink. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)