Talk:Women's rights in 2014/Archive 2

Shame and guilt issues
As anyone who has done any reading on women's issues knows, society tends to blame women for things that were done to them. Historically even violent rape has been blamed on the woman, not the rapist. Adult women who were sexually abused as children even see themselves to blame, and need therapy to recover from guilt and shame. I've come across a few articles that discuss the fact that few women have ever been able to discuss their difficult emotions surrounding an abortion that they have had. I have written up the following and would like some feedback since this issue has not yet been introduced in the article:

2014 also found an unprecedented number of women, including Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards  and Texas state senetor Wendy Davis, publicly speaking about an abortion that they had in the past. A webpage, the 1 in 3 Campaign, named for the percentage of women who will have an abortion in their lifetime, encourages women to share the story of their abortion and post it on their website. The first woman to tell her story was Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the Daily Show. Another web-based program, Sea Change, "a new nonprofit that seeks to tackle the stigma around abortion and other reproductive experiences" helps women to deal with the emotional impact of their experiences through discussion with other women with similar experiences.

Do you think that this is appropriate, and if so what heading should I use? Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lizz Winstead shared her abortion story prior to 2014. I recall her 2012 Huff post article on the topic, and an even earlier comedy, yet serious, routine on the topic of her abortion .    I suppose emphasizing Winstead could make sense if the sources link Cecile Richards and Wendy Davis' disclosures to Winstead, but I'm not sure about that and would be interested in other's thoughts on it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation templates
I notice that some citation templates have been added recently. This article was being written without citation templates, and, for the sake of consistency, can we please stick to one style/convention avoiding citation templates ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of people struggle to form non-templated citations. Templates exist for a reason and deliberately to avoid using them seems rather odd. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I support the use of templates. I also find it strange that citation templates wouldn't be used because using them creates consistency across articles and makes it easier to make global changes to citation styles. Also, using them means that editors need not worry about ensuring that they've put things in the right order. The only time I'd think that templates wouldn't be used is when there's some kind of unusual or special case that's not covered by the templates. Ca2james (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC
Is this article too reliant on opinion pieces/editorials? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Anyone who is unfamiliar with this article and who is conscientious enough to review the umpteen discussions above probably should also review the archived discussions at WT:GGTF. Unfortunately, the comments ended up being split across the two venues until recently. - Sitush (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Instead of starting an RFC so soon, why not first search out additional sources and boldly add them to article and/or discuss adding any additional sources you find on article talk page?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some allegations are only supported by op-eds, and good sources don't exist, so therefore, some of the statements supported only by op-eds should be removed. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus, the article at present is predicated on those op-eds. It is a house of cards that relies upon them, right from the first sentence. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If anyone can come up with better sources, they can propose or add or discuss them. OP-eds are clearly allowed and millions of them are being used on Wikipedia, it does not need debating on this article and this article does not need exceptional rules. If they are unsuitable, it should be debated on the relevant policiy pages like WP:V and banned from there. This RFC is a waste of time.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Hell ! I just created this op-ed based article. Manspreading. Do we need an RFC for separate rules for that article too ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This RFC doesn't seem to be well-formed. The question is unclear, as there's no indication of what "too many op-eds" means or what a support !vote would mean, and there's no summary of the issue so that editors can understand the issue at hand. Also, normally there are separate Support/Oppose and Discussion sections to make it easier for the closer to figure out consensus. Given that the issue is one of sources, why not take the article to one of the reliable sources noticeboards for clarification instead of doing an RFC? Ca2james (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible sources
Possible sources: --Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good hunting, thanks, but we need less cheerleading and more fact. Wikipedia is not intended to be an extension of any movement. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sitush, if the RS on the topic of women's rights it 2014 mostly consist of what you deem "cheerleading", then in accordance with WP:DUE, such "cheerleading" should be reflected in the article. It's become clear from your comments here and GGTF that you have a POV against the mention of the positive, or as you call it "cheerleading".  If you have sources which describe 2014 as a bleak year for women's rights, please add them, but also please do not undermine the work of others who are actively searching out and adding sources.  Lightbreather, thank you searching out and finding all of these. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good work. There is nothing wrong with collecting sources for the article. Don't let anyone dampen your spirits or make you think you are doing anything wrong. To lose good cheer and enthusiasm would be like death itself, and we all need more enthusiasm and cheer. Cheers !!!!OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Who wants to set up automatic archiving?
There are a lot of sections now. I think there'll be even more sections in the near-future. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added in archiving to be bold. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The University of Virgina rape allegations were significantly covered.
I see my addition of that content was reverted. I think I had enough sources to show that it started a national debate. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct in saying that there are enough sources covering the event itself so that the event can be documented. However, that alone does not make it suitable for inclusion in any article. Just having sources is not enough. I have read hundreds of sources which are directly on topic of "Women's rights in 2014" or "Women in 2014" or "Feminism in 2014" or similar, and it is my opinion that this event has not been noted significantly in those articles giving an overview of this topic, or majorly covering this topic. That is why it is undue in this article. Please see WP:DUE.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) If we do not have an article on that topic, the paragraph you contributed could be useful for creating a new article on that incident, or in some other article where this material may be due.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, it seems your opinion is that unless a review-of-the-year op-ed mentions something, it has no place in this article. Am I understanding you? - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused regarding how this specific case is significant with respect to women's rights in 2014? Seems this content might be better incorporated into the False accusations of rape article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused abut that, too, but also about OrangesRyellow's "overview" permission. If the Virginia thing led to some sort of backlash along the lines of "false accusations damage progress", which is something that does get said here in the UK from time to time in situations such as this, then there might be a more obvious reason for including the material. Otherwise, it seems that the only reason to include might be that we mention the debate about the role of prominent people and so should mention the debate that arose from this Virginia issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I deleted it for now because the paragraph as written seemed in no way related to women's rights in 2014. I do notice that the WP article on this case does make some mention of women's rights issues, but not so much focusing on alleged victim as previous text did, but moreso implicating Rolling Stone magazine and the Erdely (the author) because they apparently purposely sought out and then hoped to profit from a sensational rape story.  This quote from the current version of A Rape on Campus might be able to be tweaked into something we maybe could use here: "Media indictment of Rolling Stone and Erdely was swift and fierce. A number of commentators accused the magazine of setting rape victims 'back decades,' while the Washington Post described the Rolling Stone story as a 'catastrophe for journalism.' "  I'd be interested to hear from others regarding potentially including something along these lines with respect to relevant policies such as due weight etc.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian in the lead
I've kept out of the back-and-forth that has been going on regarding the opening sentence. No-one seems to have been discussing it here, merely slugging it out via edit summaries. Would "2014 was described by The Guardian, amongst others, as a watershed year ..." resolve the concerns of both groups? - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the "watershed" thing in The Guardian is probably Solnit speaking, not the newspaper. So, either substitute "Rebecca Solnit" for "The Guardian" in my proposal above or use one of the other sources. Her piece in the paper was published on 30 December and then the lead article headline (but not body) effectively quotes her on the following day. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've adopted the first suggestion, but have no objections to switching to Solnit specifically. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we cannot simply state this opinion as fact, particularly if we're using the phrasing "was described". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of this ongoing discussion when I reverted. IMO, using the term watershed (Synonyms: turning point, defining moment, pivotal moment, tipping point) has been used as journalistic hype (hype: to stimulate artificially or excite) and does not represent the reality of women's position in 2014.  I would like to see this article based in reality rather than journalistic hype.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the hands of a skilled wordsmith, any word can be used for hype. This article is based on reality, and the reality is that the reliable sources did say those things about women's right in 2014 :-) ( Not trying to be a wise guy or assumptive, but being less experienced should not mean I cannot present my counter-arguments, sorry if any part of my comment still seems assumptive )OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Must you continue to suggest that I am arguing that "watershed" has not been used to describe 2014. I've never suggested that and you should know it from our previous discussion.  My argument has been related to the reality of where women found themselves using the measurements of health, education, economic status, freedom from violence and fear of violence, etc., in 2014.  You and apparently several others believe that the journalists got it right: 2014 was a watershed year.  That may be their reality and it may be yours, but it's not mine.  Women of privilege may be doing pretty well, but women of color, poor women, and many others from around the world  saw no, NO improvement in their status in 2014, let alone a watershed year.    Gandydancer (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You have made some points in your above comment, and I could have discussed them. If I discussed them, I might agree with some parts, and also offer disagreements, refutations, criticisms on some. But if you are going to see imaginary connotations / suggestions in my comments, please consider asking if I was actually suggesting anything like that or not ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I will say again, I do not dispute that "the reality is that the reliable sources did say those things about women's right in 2014." We've been through this before on the project page where I said, " Furthermore, I've never even argued that the opinions expressed that believe that 2014 was a watershed year can't be included in the article because they do not meet guidelines. I have only said that In my opinion 2014 was not a watershed year, which is fine and I don't believe that I should now need to go on and on in this disagreement. I don't like to argue and I hope that this is the end of it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)" Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OrangesRyellow, you actually suggested with this edit that a) your change of the article was an improvement because it "make[s] for aesthetic reading", and b) The Guardian should not be linked "because I don't like links so early in an article". Both suggestions are problematic: leaving aside for the moment differing aesthetic opinions, aesthetic aspects of the article should never outweigh core policy like NPOV, and WP:UNDERLINK outweighs WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to make the statement, "2014 was an important year for women" and am glad to see it deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender gap in wages
I have removed this section that I had added to the article for discussion. I have tweaked it in bold to hopefully satisfy problems raised in discussion about whether the stats are from 2013 or 2014. Obviously stats through 2013 were used, as must be to compile the report, but it was released in 2014.


 * Reports released by the US government in 2014 show almost no change in the comparison of what women earn to that of men in the last ten years: 76 to 78 persent of that of a man and even lower for women of color. The gap exists in every occupation and grows with age.
 * The US federal minimum wage remains at $7.25 an hour; two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. This amounts to a wage that is $3,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.  Speaking in 2014, Senator Elizabeth Warren said: “Today the minimum wage isn’t even high enough to keep a fully employed mother and a baby out of poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. Anyone who works full-time should not live in poverty.”

Is there any problem with this addition? Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Additions of reviews published in 2014, which are not about 2014.
I've noticed summary type quotes or summary type statements have been added to the lead regarding reviews which happened to be published in 2014, which do not seem to be specifically about events occurring in 2014. Specifically, I'm referring to the content referenced by and. Perhaps it would be better to carefully go through these documents, and pull out information specific to 2014, instead of summarizing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I added both of those. It is my impression that I have added information specific to 2014.  I don't understand what you see as a problem.  Please be more specific.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, I was referring to this: "an unprecedented wave of state-level abortion restrictions swept the country over the past three years". Perhaps we could tweak it to be more 2014 focused?  Maybe we could emphasize the laws restricting abortion passed in 2014, and then mention Guttmacher describes the 2014 laws as being part of a 3 year trend of laws restricting access to abortion.  I was also referring to this quote "no single country can claim that there is progressive elimination occurring".  I haven't had time to read through the lengthy document referencing this quote.  Is she saying As of 2014, no country can claim progressive elimination is occurring? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the abortion report, I would prefer to not manipulate the information the institute presented to make it seem to have been something other than what it was. I will remove it if others do not support my position.  Re no "progressive elimination occurring", yes, that is what she claims to see since the first report in 2006.  I can remove if there is no support for this as well.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the abortion report content should be deleted because I don’t see an easy way to make this 2014 related.  I can’t find any reference to court decisions or laws enacted in 2014 in this report.  A google search of “2014 abortion laws” does reveal these two, but neither restrict access to abortion, but rather they protect access to abortion., --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I have not gained any support so I will remove that information. What is your opinion on the Manjoo info and the new info I added re the wage gap, which is also a report based on the present status rather than anything new that occurred in 2014?  Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rather than go through the work of formatting my references for the wage gap section I have removed it for now since it may also be objected to since it is not strictly anything new from 2014 but rather a recap of where we are today. If there is support I can put it back.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the status quo in 2014 is relevant to this article, and when possible such information should be presented in the format of "As of 2014, the gender wage gap was...", but the thing that concerns me here regarding some of the refs is they are published in 2014, but the most recent data they appear to be using is 2013 data. I haven't had a chance to closely read all the refs for the wage gap content, but glancing at them I noticed this ref is using 2013 data.  They state "In 2013, among full-time, year-round workers, women were paid 78 percent of what men were paid".  Unfortunately, I think we might have to wait for later reports to get 2014 data. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well of course the data is from 2013 - how can they publish a report in 2014 using 2014 data? By your way of thinking, if a Women's rights in 2015 would be written it would again be impossible to include info because the data was collected in 2014.Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am not making my position clear enough. I have no objection to including in this article a report published in 2015 which says "In 2014, the wage gap was", but I do have concerns regarding using a report published in 2014 which says "In 2013, the wage gap was...." because the topic is Women's rights in 2014. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that this has reached the level of splitting hairs. There seems to be no problem with using a half a dozen news sources, web news and mags, to state 2014 was a groundbreaking year, but when it comes to respected sources, the Guttmacher Institute or gov't wage stats on gender inequality for example, we need to start splitting hairs.  The Guttmacher Institute put their report out in 2014 and that should be good enough.  The reason that all the fluffy stuff like "watershed and groundbreaking year" for women satisfying your "happened in 2014" requirement is that they did not bother to gather any hard facts to back up their assertions.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Data about 2013 can be added in the Women's rights in 2013 article. If data about 2014 has not been published as yet, we can wait and include it whenever it gets published. Data about 2013 does not pertain to the 2014 article.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case all of the following info will need to go as well, unless you can explain to me how they managed to use data from 2014 to publish a report in 2014, when the year's data was not even yet published:


 * The World Economic Forum's 2014 Global Gender Gap Report, measuring the allocation of resources between women and men in health, education, economy and politics, ranked Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark highest on their Global Gender Gap Index, while Yemen, Pakistan, Chad, Syria and Mali were among the worst. Globally, the health and survival gap stands at 96% and the educational attainment gap is 94%, with some countries closing the gap entirely. However, the gap related to improvement for women in the workplace stands at 60%, having closed by only 4% since 2006. Although it has shown the most improvement, the political empowerment gap remains at just 21%. [56][57][58]


 * For instance, they draw a lot of information from that published by the WHO. How could they use WHO info from 2014 when the WHO would obviously not have published their data till the year was out?  This is so basic that I really do not understand why this argument seems to go on and on. Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rankings for 2014, and the data on which that ranking was calculated, clearly pertains to the 2014 article. Data about 2013 or earlier pertains to 2013 article or earlier. I am at a loss how to explain this in simpler terms.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to make it simpler either, but you are clearly wrong when you say that for instance the 2014 Global Gender Gap Report used 2014 data. It was published in 2014 and belongs in the article (as should the Guttmacher 2014 report), but the data is almost invariably old data from 3013 or earlier.  See for instance the Denmark data that was used.   At any rate, this has become a waste of my time and I will move on.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
I removed the opening sentence to this article because of its overzealous and hyperbolic tone, which does not sound appropriate for an encyclopedia article. What does “since the dawn of time” even supposed to mean? Unless they mean the dawn of Time magazine, how could anyone possibly know this? It actually sounds quite silly, and unbecoming of an article on Wikipedia. I suggest use another, more sensible, quotation from the article at Time. Alialiac (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any input on this, since you moved the Time quote to the lead sentence back on January 19? I agreed with the move and no-one else objected, but maybe others missed it? Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , I see you reverted the sentence again without hearing from BoboMeowCat (as far as I can tell). Favor, please? Could you at least put edit summaries with your edits? Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted because opening the lead with "The newspaper" or "Newspapers like...." is awkward phrasing. I would support going back to OrangesRyellow's version of the opening paragraph, but unfortunately when we opened with the watershed year content people kept edit warring in awkward wording when "described as" seemed sufficient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

re dyk
This article was nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Women's rights in 2014, but a concern has been raised that the article isn't neutral. The article's dyk nominator, SlimVirgin, wants her name taken off the nomination and the article's creator, OrangesRyellow, is no longer interested in the article and recommends the nomination be deleted. EChastain (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)