Talk:Bechdel test/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page Name - Bechdel vs. Bechdel-Wallace

Given that Alison Bechdel herself has said she wants it to be referred to as the Bechdel-Wallace test, since Wallace is the one whose idea it actually was and Bechdel was the one who publicized it through her comic, would it not be better to name the page "Bechdel-Wallace test" and have a redirect from "Bechdel test"? Likewise it should be referred to as such throughout, except where noting the alternate form. It just seems appropriate to give credit where due, especially when it's been requested by the current namesake. Felice Enellen (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand why you might think that, but Wikipedia policy is to use the most commonly used name for article topics, see WP:COMMONNAME, not what the topic's creator calls it. "Bechdel test" is clearly more widely used.  Sandstein  14:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Felice Enellen (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Bechdell test in media

I just finished watching Archer season 7 episode 6 "Bel Pante: II" where the female characters are in a room arguing about the male characters when one of them laughs and says, "Suck it, Bechdell test". I thought this might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article JMargulies (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what we call "trivia"; we try to avoid writing articles that accumulate such minor examples. See WP:TRIVIA. The place to put such mentions would be TV Tropes.  Sandstein  12:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Statistics update?

I think updating the statistics on the movies that pass/fail the bechdel test on bechdeltest.com would he beneficial to this article. It seems the data currently reflects statistics from 2015 that may have been updated on the website since then.Syoung18 (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable thing to do to me. Go right ahead. Tamtrible (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bechdel test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316161800/http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-13243-comic-con-vs-the-bechdel-test.html to http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-13243-comic-con-vs-the-bechdel-test.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Intro section

The introductory sentence is very poor - it does not tell the reader what the Bechdel test actually is - it only says what it does.

The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ BEK-dəl) asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man.

I added an explanation complete with a reliable source, which was immediately removed for being "unsourced", which has not helped the article at all. Here was my addition - you may disagree with it or think it's inaccurate, in which case do please improve it instead of just deleting it.

The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ BEK-dəl) is a critical approach in Feminist film theory and Feminist literary criticism that aims to evaluate the portrayal of women in a film. It asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The requirement that the two women must be named is sometimes added.

References

Thanks ever so much. Cnbrb (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't access the cited source, could you reproduce it? Another problem is that per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article, and the content "critical approach in Feminist film theory and Feminist literary criticism that aims to evaluate the portrayal of women in a film" isn't found in the body of the article. Sandstein 09:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a link to Google books. You should be able to access it by clicking on the link. But I'm not bothered about that - perhaps you can refer to a better source. It sounds to me like the article needs to be rewritten, if the lead cannot say what the Bechdel test actually is. Is it a medical test? A maths test? I mean, you are welcome to completely rewrite what I wrote - I'm not precious about my choice of words, but in its current form, the intro does not explain adequately to the average reader what the article is about. It's an interesting topic and deserves better explanation. Cnbrb (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I agree that a concise definition would be helpful, but we'd need a source for this. I can't readily find a basis in the source you cite for the definition you propose, "a critical approach in Feminist film theory and Feminist literary criticism that aims to evaluate the portrayal of women in a film". Which page were you referencing? The source is very helpful otherwise, though, and we should be able to use it to improve the article. Sandstein 11:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite and get a better source. I don't dispute if it's not the best, but I'm sure you'll be able to compile something more accurate. Mainly, what I'd like to read in the lead is

1. what sort of test it is (film criticism, lit crit, whatever)
2. what the cultural/political context is (a specific branch of feminist thinking perhaps)
3. what it aims to achieve

I'll leave that in your capable hands! Thanks again. Cnbrb (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the reference should also mention the author of the chapter that was used, and the full title of the chapter. The full reference would be: {{cite book |last1=Savigny |first1=Heather |last2=Thorsen |first2=Einar |last3=Jackson |first3=Daniel |last4=Alexander |first4=Jenny |title=Media, Margins and Popular Culture |date=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9781137512819 |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Er2hCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT32&dq=Bechdel%20test%20%22feminist%20film%20theory%22&pg=PT32#v=onepage&q&f=false |accessdate=1 June 2018 |language=en |chapter=1. No SMall-Tak in Paradise: Why Elysium Fails the Bechdel Test, and Why We Should Care (by Christa van Raalte)}} Christa van Raalte is this scientist: [[1]]. Apparently, she works at Bournemouth University, at the Centre for Film and Television, where she is Head of Department - Media. This is another link to the article: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/22186/. Does this help? Laurier (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, well as nobody seems interested in improving this, I have made the opening paragraph clearer, and reinstated the reference with more precise attribution. The article makes much more sense now to the reader. Cnbrb (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks very good! Laurier (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

..and thank you for your further edits. The intro makes much more sense now. Cnbrb (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The chart in History shows women as blue and men as orange/red.

The chart in History shows female as blue and male as orange/red. Since there is a well-known convention which uses blue for males, and pink/red/orange for females, that is mildly confusing, especially since the text stating blue is female (and ALL the text within the box) is super-small. I did a double-take, and had to peer closely. Perhaps the colors could be switched for the sake of clarity? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:F4BC:DB4B:710E:8E0B (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really an issue honestly, and it's not worth the effort. I don't think orange is a traditionally "feminine" color anyways, and trying to find a stereotypically fitting color for gender roles seems a little ironic given the article topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Have to agree with FenixFeather here. The irony isn't waster on my either. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hidden comment in External links

The following hidden text inserted in the section is moved here for visibility:

Ought to be a source for article content, rather than an external link:

• Little Boys Learn A Lot From Watching 'Star Wars,' And It Isn't All Good Colin Stokes heavily referenced the Bechdel test in his Tedx talk on female roles in film. – by User:Sandstein 20:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Limitations - "Baby Got Back" statement

Why is the statement about "Baby Got Back" necessary to keep if it no longer has a current reliable or valid source?

For example, the Sir Mix-a-Lot song "Baby Got Back" has been described as passing the Bechdel test, because it begins with a valley girl saying to another "oh my god, Becky, look at her butt".^[49]

Reference 49, the Lifehacker article that has been used here as a reference source for this statement, is not the original source of the statement. The Lifehacker article merely (and briefly) includes this linked and underlined sentence about the the song, "After all, “Baby Got Back” passes it." The Lifehacker article is not claiming this statement as it's own original content, but instead it is clearly linking to another source for this statement, an earlier TVtropes article. The problem is, that original source (TVtropes) has since removed that original statement about "Baby Got Back" from the original source article. The Lifehacker article no longer has a valid or reliable source for this statement. --Tengallonprophet (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Tengallonprophet, TV Tropes is not a reliable source, because it can be user-edited. So it does not matter to us what has been added or removed there. (For all we know, it could have been you who edited it to remove the reference there.) But Lifehacker is a reliable source, and we can cite them. What is or was their source is not our concern. That somebody later edited it, even less so. Sandstein 16:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

​​It seems to me there are two issues here, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

The (generally) reliable source Lifehacker has repeated a claim made by the non-WP:RS TVTropes to make a spurious point which does not stand up. The song in question is largely about a woman talking to another woman about a third woman's attractiveness to men. The Bechdel test is applied to a complete work, not a random line taken out of context. The claim is dubious at best.

To present wp:npov information it is usually sufficient to use WP:WIKIVOICE and reference a reliable source. However it should be remembered that "reliable source" is shorthand for "generally reliable source". No source is judged to be 100% reliable 100% of the time. Sometimes a reliable source might be dubious, nonsensical, or flat out wrong. Qualification is then necessary to maintain Wiki voice. So "Water is wet <reliable source 1>" is usually fine, but sometimes "Reliable source 2 says that water is dry <reliable source 2>" is required.

The example in this article is half-hearted, currently saying:

"the song "Baby Got Back" has been described as passing the Bechdel test".<Lifehacker>

A better rendering in WP:WIKIVOICE would be something like:

"Lifehacker has repeated a since-deleted TVTropes claim that the song "Baby Got Back" passes the Bechdel test, based solely on that song's opening line.<Lifehacker>"

Sandstein says "Lifehacker is a reliable source, and we can cite them." Sure we can, but should we? Having complied with NPOV, the content is more wordy yet of thinner substance. Lifehacker was less than diligent in repeating the TVTropes claim, should Wikipedia follow their folly? I suggest that to do so is to give the claim undue weight, and it should be removed. To be clear, delete: "For example, the Sir Mix-a-Lot song "Baby Got Back" has been described as passing the Bechdel test, because it begins with a valley girl saying to another "oh my god, Becky, look at her butt"." along with the Lifehacker reference and the similar Jezebel reference. The "Sonifying Gender Representation in Film" reference should stay as it relates to the preceding sentence. Unless compelling reasons are presented for retaining the content (or someone else removes it first) I'll remove it in a day or so. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You're making assertions without any evidence to back them up. "The Bechdel test is applied to a complete work, not a random line taken out of context" - says who? This is a song, not a screenplay, and thus it does not have "scenes". Does "a complete work" mean that there must be no content which does not have two women talking to each other about something other than a man? "The song in question is largely about a woman talking to another woman about a third woman's attractiveness to men" - no, it's not. And even if it were, that's the point: does one woman talking to another woman about a third woman's body... count as "a conversation between two women about something other than a man"? The third woman certainly isn't a man. "Character" is not defined, "conversation" is not defined. And even if we were to accept your argument that Lifehacker became unreliable because they linked to TV Tropes, what about Jezebel? DS (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Moon landing film fails the test

There's a meme going around that says: You hate the moon landing video because it's fake; I hate it because it doesn't pass the Bechdel Test. The meme is more than just a superficial wisecrack. (Caution: Just to nitpick a little, the moon landings were recorded on 16mm film, not video.) — O'Dea (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The moon landings were also performed by men, and I suspect that the ground control staff also consisted of nothing but men. Logically, it cannot possibly pass the test. The Bechdel test was intended for assessing creative films, not documentaries. Is there a suggestion for changing the article here? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CITE fail in lead section

The claim is made without citation that BT-passing films do better at the box office. There is a hidden comment saying we are not to put a citation after the statement and instead hunt through the list of external sources. This is both lazy and a violation of WP:CITE. By the way, I have seen in the last 24 hours websites dismissing this claim as a lie based on the fact there is no source cited, so it's doing the message more harm than good in not including a source. Indeed, based on my past life as a WP admin my first instinct is to remove it as unsourced information. Please put a source for this claim (there may be others but this is one explicitly being called a lie in external media because no source is given.) 70.73.90.119 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that you refer to your "past life as a WP admin", why are you not using your account? Are you subject to a block or ban? And on the merits, what's wrong with the sources in Bechdel test#Financial aspects? Sandstein 15:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the citations, Mr. String of Numbers, discuss them *in the appropriate section*, not the lead paragraph. Tamtrible (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• FQ26Qy5VsAADXno.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)