Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xurizuri (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 26 February 2022 (→Renaming discussion at Gender bias on Misplaced Pages: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:GGTF

• Welcome to the GGTF: the gender gap task force. Please sign up if you'd like to help.
• The talk page is for friendly discussion about anything related to closing Misplaced Pages's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, and so on.
• Add new posts to the end or click here to start a new topic.
• Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

​By topic Categories and gender Gender-related arbitration cases

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Pop culture articles related to domestic abuse and gender bias

First of all, I want to apologise if this is not the right forum to write this, but I am hoping to find support and more information. I'm a longtime editor but used to focus more on old (pre-1960s) pop culture/art articles. In the recent years, I've also 'branched out' to more recent pop culture articles, especially related to domestic abuse cases, such as the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp case, and now, the Marilyn Manson case. Why I started doing this was because I noticed that whenever there's a woman who goes public with abuse allegations, the related WP articles seem to not represent the cases in a neutral way, but instead are often biased towards the person that is alleged to have been the abusive party. The line "innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court" seems to be often thrown around to prevent anything beyond a cursory mention of allegations, despite the fact that criminal convictions in domestic/intimate partner/child abuse cases are relatively rare due to multiple factors, none of which is that fake allegations would be prevalent. The same commitment to 'the truth' that makes editors block almost any mention of abuse allegations does often not go the other way, with almost any material that casts the accuser in a bad light being ok to add apparently.

Examples: the main editor of Manson's WP articles adding a section about Wood stating that Kobe Bryant was a rapist and wording it in a way that was misleading and deliberately made Wood look bad; the same user disputing Wood's statement that she was underage in an image and thus deleting this statement, and refusing to allow details of the allegations in the MM article; after Depp lost his libel case in the UK, editors seem to want to add minutiae on anti-Heard online petitions, or blatant attempts of Depp's team to smear her to the article... I can go on and give more details if you are interested. It also appears that quite a few Wikipedians seem to lose their ability to look at the big picture (e.g. the entire case from start to present day) or to have any basic source criticism when it comes to these articles. It also doesn't seem that many Wikipedians have any basic knowledge of domestic/intimate partner violence (e.g. that mutual abuse is rare but the abuser trying to frame self-defense as such is not; that fake allegations are very, very rare; that it's often difficult to take cases to court; that BDSM and abuse are different things entirely; that abusers can seem to be nice people to outsiders...), although of course this applies to the general population as well. Even in a case where there are multiple accusers making very serious allegations and politicians calling for a FBI investigation (e.g. Manson) or where the accusations have been proven in a civil court (Depp), it seems to be difficult to break through this bias.

Apologies if this is a bit rambling, but I guess I'm here to seek peer support and advice? Is there any type of Manual of Style for these types of cases? It would be great to discuss these issues with others as I often feel like the only editor trying to fight this bias in these articles, but I know I must not be alone. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

If any admins read this forum, please take a look at the Evan Rachel Wood article, it's currently experiencing quite a bit of vandalism from IPs, and most likely this will continue. Likewise, if anyone can advise how to get in touch with an admin/how to go about temporarily restricting edits by unregistered editors to the article, that would be wonderful! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

TrueHeartSusie3, the problem with Evan Rachel Wood is that it's being used as a coatrack for serious allegations against a public figure (a BLP). We're allowed to publish such allegations if there is sufficiently strong sourcing, but I wonder whether there is in this case, and at such length. SarahSV 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, are you referring to the part that the fly-by keeps removing? I'd argue that since it comes from her testimonies at the Senate and State hearings, and doesn't directly state Manson's name in that paragraph, there's grounds for keeping it. I've tried to keep it as general as possible, but why it was added in the first place was because there seemed to be confusion about what type of abuse Wood is talking about. Initially, the name of the section was 'Sexual assaults', even though the allegations that Wood makes include other violence and abuse as well. I do agree that the paragraph is getting long, but if you actually look at the content of it, not a lot of it is on the actual allegations. Hopefully with the current criminal investigation there will be even better grounds for having a long section on this (or even a separate article if there are criminal charges like in the Weinstein and Cosby cases). However, why I am concerned for the article is more because of the content that is being added repeatedly. It is unsourced and seems to have the sole purpose of making Wood seem bad. Thank you for responding! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Ok, now I have to say I am confused, User:SlimVirgin. I just checked your edits, and I see you've deleted any mention of Wood naming him as her abuser? Even though that has been widely reported by top media (NYT, LAT, The Guardian, BBC...) and has excellent sources to back it up, in addition to also including Manson's take on the matter? Could you please clarify why? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I've edited it down to this. Is anything important missing from that version? I've been meaning to start a discussion at WT:BLP about whether we need to add something to the policy about this kind of situation. The policy was written before Me Too. It didn't foresee so many serious allegations against public figures, some of them relatively minor public figures. We need extra guidance. SarahSV 21:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, now it looks much better! Thank you! :) I think the only thing that needs to be mentioned somehow is the fact that Wood isn't the only person making these allegations. On Feb 1, when she first named MM, four other women did so too, Wood just happens to be the only one with celebrity status. The news articles on that day seem to discuss their allegations jointly, i.e. she was one in a group of people naming MM. Since then 4 or 5 other women have also come out. So some type of mention that this is several women rather than just Wood making these allegations would I think be warranted. I think it could perhaps also be mentioned that at least three public representatives in three different states have also called for an investigation on Manson. However, I anticipate that this case may actually lead to criminal charges and at that stage may warrant its own article, so of course the state representatives' calls for investigation may be best left until that.

I agree that it may be a good idea to develop some sort of style guide etc. for how these types of allegations should be handled, they are tricky. I will be happy to contribute my thoughts if needed! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The problem is when a large section of an article about person A becomes about person B. For example, that at least three public representatives in three different states have called for an investigation into Manson has nothing to do with Wood's bio. I think anything resembling a coatrack should be avoided. SarahSV 22:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think it should at least somehow be mentioned that Wood isn't the only one making these claims, she is part of a group of women making them. Now, it appears as if she alone is making them. I don't think any further detail needs to be added, just a mention that several other women also came out with similar claims at the same time. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

User:SlimVirgin or any other admins reading this page, please take a look at the Depp/Heard pages as well if you have time, there's persistent BLP violations taking place right now, not sure what to do as don't want to edit war. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I've tightened the Wood section further, added the other women, and added a "further information" link to the abuse allegations section of the Manson article. See permalink. SarahSV 04:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks much better! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thanks. I don't think I can face working on the Depp/Heard articles, but I'll take a look at them anyway. SarahSV 20:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally understandable, am so tired myself :( I think the Heard one is in pretty ok shape at the moment, and is now more protected, but the Depp article still has the same poorly sourced claims in there, so I would suggest focusing on that instead if/when you have time. Again, thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

New moon +1 Gender balance, +1 Global perspective, +1 Non-solarian religions, +1 scientific anti-scientism

Trying to make +1 for addressing systemic bias in academia: Talk:New moon § Separating sections: Lunisolar Calendar and Lunar Calendar Today is the second new moon of spring. We don't know this, because they refuse to feature this kind of content on the main page, accusing people like me of POV promoting a lunar religion, and suggesting that I'm WP:NOTHERE. We need to find points of intersection in this struggle. Lets get the new moon on the main page next month.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for input on nomination for deletion of Template:Gender unclear

Hello, I would request input on the nomination of Template:Gender unclear for deletion. The reasons for deletion intersect with the goals of this WikiProject, with the template being claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders. The corresponding discussion may thus be of interest to this task force.

Template:Gender unclear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ExoticViolet (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ExoticViolet (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Renaming discussion at Gender bias on Misplaced Pages

There's a requested move at Gender bias on Misplaced Pages, to move to Sexism on Misplaced Pages. Please join the discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC) (please ping me if you reply)