User:M4M3M2M1/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1
There is only a brief mention of Neufert's appointment by Speer in the english version of the article. Otherwise, it completely passes over this period. In the initial blurb, the use of the word "essential" in regards to his book indicates a clear bias on behalf of the writer. In the german entry, there is more detail on Neufert's Nazi affiliations. It also includes the fact that in the final phase of WWII, Hitler included him in the "God-gifted list of most important architects" which saved him from serving in the military on the home front. This information is from a German source (see Ernst Klee below).
 * Ernst Neufert
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation

Overall, the entry may appear neutral to someone who knows little of the topic. However, given the lack of disclosure about significant periods of his life and affiliations with the Nazi-regime, there is a clear bias to show Neufert in a favourable light. This shrouds the intentions behind the creation of norms that inform our built environment, leaving them to remain unquestioned. The article is in urgent need of revisiting. At this time, there is no discussion on the talk page initiating this. Ernst Klee: ''Das Kulturlexikon zum Dritten Reich. Wer war was vor und nach 1945.'' S. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2007, ISBN 978-3-10-039326-5, S. 431. (from German Wikipedia)
 * Sources
 * Sources

https://www.archdaily.com/881889/neufert-the-exceptional-pursuit-of-the-norm

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-revolutionary-concept-of-standard-sizes-only-dates-to-the-1920s

Aimi Hamraie, Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017) https://manifold.umn.edu/read/building-access/section/0ecf759f-f9e8-471b-ae06-17938f98fc3a#ch01

Option 2
The initial blurb contains statements that do not match the content. For instance, it says that the Modular "considered the standard human height as 1.75m." Later in the article, it says that, while this was initially the case, it was changed to 1.83m. To its credit, the article does mention that this change was arbitrarily made to reflect the height of the "good-looking" policemen described in American detective novels (6 ft). However, it fails to speak to the fact that this system is then based on a random whim, and not mathematical proportions like it claims to. "Human" is used repeatedly when we all know it should be "man." There is one sentence that states that the 'female' body "was only belatedly considered and rejected as a source of proportional harmony." No mention at how this was inline with Le Corbusier's eugenics. No discussion of critique from a disability stand point. This section desperately needs a section outlining the shortcomings and negative impacts this new standard has caused. Going further in depth on the philosophy behind its creation would be helpful as well, including the contradictions between theory and practice.
 * Modulor
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation

“A standard is necessary for order in human effort. A standard is established on sure bases, not capriciously but with the surety of something intentional and of a logic controlled by analysis and experiment. All men have the same organism, the same functions. All men have the same needs.” - Le Corbusier (1923) Aimi Hamraie, Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017) https://manifold.umn.edu/read/building-access/section/0ecf759f-f9e8-471b-ae06-17938f98fc3a#ch01
 * Sources
 * Sources

https://failedarchitecture.com/human-all-too-human-a-critique-on-the-modulor/

Option 3
This article begins with general neutral information regarding naming, signage, design, etc. The problems seem to really start in the section "History of sex-separated toilets" which presents "competing theories." The first subsection "Western sex-separation as a modern development" is quite brief and would benefit from a deeper consideration. The explanation seems to be in reverse chronological order which is confusing. This should link back to toilet, to show the communal washrooms prior to the 19th century. There is no mention of the Great Exhibition of 1851, which had the first public sex-separated facilities with flush toilets. I'd be very happy to add more to this section, and have a considerable amount of sources to draw from. Next, there is a longer subsection titled "Western sex-separation as pre-modern," which only cites one source. In order to shroud this fact, phrases such as "one scholar claims" are used to make it seem as though more sources are being brought into the fold. The sole cited source argues that unisex washrooms ignore the concerns of "female-bodied" people. The inherent biological essentialism presented in the abstract alone is a red flag. A brief search of the author yields alarming affiliations. The author of the source, a law professor, is very active on twitter. She recently retweeted an article titled "GIRLS only: Utah legislature overrides Governor's veto, bans biological males from women's sports." In addition, she seems to have a personal vendetta against swimmer Lia Thomas. Trans children are also the targets of her attacks. Social media presence is one thing, participating in transphobic court cases is another. She acted as "Amicus Curiae," defending an employer who denigrated a trans-woman employee. The document is gut-wrenching. All that to say, this person is not neutral in the slightest! She has clear biases, which are harmful. In her personal and professional life, she has targeted transgender people in the name of 'protecting' [cis]women, and should not be included in this article. The aforementioned author is also heavily cited in the next subsection, "primary rationales for sex-segregation." Under the following subsection, "controversy," she is exclusively cited. Again, her arguments resort to claims that separate facilities protect women from sexual assault. There is no regard to the violence faced by trans-women. Rather than actually presenting the controversy between these conflicting views, she simply reiterates her views from the previous subsections. This subsection would benefit from an impartial recounting of the tension between these views, and perhaps include statistics from studies that demonstrate who actually experiences violence in these spaces.
 * Unisex public toilet
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation

Under "society and culture" there is a subsection on "gender nonconforming people." It's a good start, but could be elaborated upon. When discussing the traction it is gaining as a controversial topic in US politics, it could link to other Wikipedia articles such as Bathroom Bills. The following subsection, "criticisms," reiterates previous arguments about violence to women (cis-gender I assume, because these people don't seem to consider the fact that trans-women are women too). Although I disagree with these claims, this section does a better job at presenting them as arguments made by various people, rather than as 'facts.' It could use some adjustments however to make this more clear, and to remove more insertions made by the previously mentioned author. Moral Panic might be worth linking as well. And TERF should factor in there too. On a historical note, it should be inserted somewhere that women stopped equal rights for women (ERA) because they didn't want same-sex bathrooms... Images of flyers decrying this outcome could be inserted as well.

Onto the Talk page. There was a proposed deletion of the page in 2016 because the page was said to be too biased in favour of LGBT rights. Someone also wrote "what does racial segregation have to do with unisex toilets??" These topics are actually very pertinent to each other - for greater intersectionality this page would benefit from a section on race (perhaps including an image of bathroom divided by 'white women,' 'white men,' and 'coloureds'). In the end, it was decided that the page should be kept.

Someone noted a concern with the information presented on the section "History of sex-separated toilets," citing clear political bias. This was in 2019. A second person noted this in 2020, writing lengthily under the heading "Bias concerns in certain sections, pertaining to usage of language and disproportionate use of a single source." They note that this source also found its way into the introduction paragraph, which I had missed. Overall, they believe that the article pays "undue attention to a fringe theory from an extreme minority," deriving from a single essay published in a non-peer-reviewed publication (although it is from Yale University). There is no evidence of its degree of acceptance with a broader audience, which they say detracts from its credibility. They also picked up on the misleading language used to suggest agreement among multiple authors. The single source is cited 20 times (more than any other in the article), and was added by the author herself, which represents a clear conflict of interest. The author then responds to this person, with an extremely lengthy response... To extract a few quotes, she states things like "facts are facts" and "Wikipedia should not cite a view as dominant merely because of numbers of people have held it. Most people once thought the world was flat. Perhaps some people still insist that it is." She both states that she is the author of the article, and that it is "the latest and best source both in terms of citing broader evidence and in terms of date." She also states that she was "triggered by your question" to the person whom she was responding too. All in all, she is terrifying and I don't want her to come after me, but also she cannot have this air time. Sheila cavanagh book
 * Sources
 * Sources

bloomfield book

(will come back to sources, I have lots)

Option 4

 * Public toilet

Article Evaluation

The initial blurb is informative, but sometimes adds information that should be part of a subsection. It at times goes into greater detail than what is presented in the following article. These should be redirected to their appropriate areas. In the section "Health Problems," the article makes statements such as "men with prostate problems, women who are menstruating" which could be more concisely and accurately changed to "people." The subsection "social hierarchies (access for women), under the section "Equality of Access," presents women as not having access to public washrooms prior to the 20th century due to their restriction from the public sphere. This is misleading, since it makes it seem as though this has been the state of things for time immemorial. The "public toilet" described only appeared in the 19th century. Perhaps the "History" section should go before this one. Also, transgender access only figures under the subsection "Unisex" in the section "Society and Culture." This should be an additional subsection in "Equality of Access." The subsection "racial segregation" could benefit from photos of signage. Under "Other Fixtures" there are some perplexing statements such as "In women’s toilets, women can sit directly in the toilet seat (emphasis added)." I'm not sure what sitting IN a toilet seat means! Under "User Fees" it is stated that "Paying to use a toilet can be traced back almost 2000 years," with no source. There are several unsourced statements throughout the article. In the subsection "Shopping centres," it is written that "Some business, like Starbucks, have officially opted to let anyone use their toilets, without having to purchase anything." This seems to present Starbucks in a favourable light, and fails to mention that this was following an instance of high publicized instance of racial profiling. Under "Society and Culture," the subsection "Unisex" is a random amalgamation of thoughts, which mostly don't seem to belong. It begins by stating that washrooms are usually separated by sex and gives various rational for the phenomenon, rather than first explaining what a unisex washroom is. It also explains how binary washrooms are mandated by code - this should probably factor into the "Legislation" section. There is a mention of "potty parity" which should go in the "Equality of Access" section prior. This section also writes about calls to add baby change tables in men's washrooms, as they are usually only in women's - all this with no mention of unisex washrooms... Perhaps there should be a section on design decisions based on gender stereotypes? Finally near the end there is discussion about actual unisex washrooms, and a brief mention of people with disabilities, and gender non-conforming folks. This section warrants an entire rewrite, and rearranging the disparate elements to more sensible locations. Also under this section is an "Anonymous Sex" subsection, which frames gay sex as exclusively occurring between me who were too young to go to gay bars, prior to gay liberation. In trying to offer an explanation linked with drinking age, it takes a reduction approach to the phenomenon. The section "Legislation" only covers employee rights, and does not go over mandatory binary toilets, and the current bathroom bills. Finally, the "History" section appears. It explains that public toilets were rare in the middle ages, appearing in the 19th century. It does not explain why this was so. There should be a fuller history as it is a relatively recent phenomenon and this is not made explicit. It should also be placed sooner in the article. Perhaps prior to the "Equality of Access" section. Onto the Talk page. There is an abundance of discussion regarding proper terminology. This seems to make up the bulk of people's concerns. Someone moved the history section back down to the bottom after someone had moved it up, that is certainly worth noting given my own belief that is should appear sooner. The content regarding separation was moved to the "Unisex Public Toilet" page. I disagree with the removal of this content, as it is historically and contemporaneously significant to the concept. Major content about transgender issues were also moved to that page. I also disagree with the lack of discussion of transgender people on this page, especially as there is an "Equality of Access" section. Someone has requested for the legislation page to be added to, so there is an awareness that it is lacking. The page has not been active since 2020, but when it was, many people commented upon minute changes, and there seems to be a vigilance on the part of a few contributors. There has been a lot of back and forth discussion and consensus building, particularly in regards to terminology. Because of the emphasis on this form of decision making, it seems perhaps wise to write about my proposed changes on the article prior to making them. Same as above.
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5
This article is about the toilet as a fixture. It offers an overview of different kinds of toilets, which it has categorized in an organized manner. Under "Usage" there is a link to the "Public Toilet" article. It offers a concise sentence which seems ample given that the topic is covered in greater depth elsewhere. The "Ancient History" subsection briefly goes over many localities. The "Post-Classical History" and "Modern History" could use some elaborating. Same as above.
 * Toilet
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources