Talk:Gender equality/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Redirect to Gender Egalitarianism

[[While historically, there is a distinction between Equity, Equality, and Egalitarianism. However, within the realm of Gender Equity, Gender Equality, and Gender Egalitarianism, they have become synonymous. I suggest, redirecting Gender Equality to Gender Egalitarianism.]]Italic text Yes, since "sexual equality" is already redirected there, this should do the same. --Espoo 13:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV/NOR

NOR: Google: 3,960,000 = Gender equality; 7,850 = Gender egalitarianism; 358 for "zygarchy" (all wikipedia)

Redirecting all to Gender Equality, including all cites. --Yamara ✉ 05:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in the first section does not have a neutral point of view: "However, women embracing pornography and other anti-social behaviour at times associated with male groups is widely criticised." It implies that pornography is part of anti-social behaviour, whereas 'female-friendly' porn is starting to become more mainstream. I would recommend removing the words "anti-social" to neutralize this sentence. 69.196.180.118 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gender equality is one of this project's central concepts. It was AWOL.

(reposted from Portal_talk:Feminism)

Essentially, variations on Gender equality had been hijacked six or so months ago by redirects to both Zygarchy and Equalism, and had actually begun to affect the conversation across the internet.

This is bad news, as these terms have nothing behind them but ill-defined assertions. I've rarely been embarrassed for Wikipedia, but this is one of those moments where the site's power was left in the hands of POV/OR mischief-makers.

"Zygarchy" is a made-up word that would never meet the WP:NEO standard if anyone had caught it. It has never meant "rule of two genders" before someone asserted it on Wikipedia. There are a couple hundred blogs out there crowing about the "new word they'd learned" while learning less than zero about notable, verifiable internationally-established gender policy. (Somewhat ominously, "zygarchy" is an obscure but genuine term for an ancient military formation involving two chariots. I think the chariots were used to run infantry over... or to cut them down with a chain between them...)

"Equalism" has been used by notable sources and scholars-- but never consistently. There was some effort to use it to refer to communism in the fifties, anarchism at various points, and some among the Facebook crowd seem to like it better than "feminism"; one news citation in Sweden counts it as a subset of feminism. That is to say, it's a semantic game: There is no "-ism" there, just a desire for one, a moving target without a developed philosophy behind it. I've redirected it to a far more notable article, Egalitarianism.

Nearly every instance of a wikilink to Gender equality had been piped to Equalism. That's what last night was all about for me: finding and removing the plumbing from this phantasm.

I've reestablished the Gender equality article with cites to the UN and an external link to the World Bank. I've added it to the various gender studies and feminism templates. This is one of this project's central concepts, and we really have to watch these pages. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See also section

At this writing, the See also section could get very long; the intent is to first gather all the gender equality-specific articles there, and then work them into a proper article as we review their relevance. -Yamara ✉ 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: http://www.wikieducator.org/Gender_Balance--24.69.201.228 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

...Nothing there now... -Yamara ✉ 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is 'this philosophy'

I know it's a lot of work establishing good entries of any kind on Wiki, and sometimes edit conflicts lead to a really big mess.

Sooooo...
Last section reads:
"Many followers of this philosophy would like to see this term come to replace “feminism” or “masculism,” when used to describe a belief in basic equal rights and opportunities for members of both sexes within legal, social, or corporate establishments." What is 'this philosophy?' The gender equality philiosophy? Why then does it later mover on to read 'egalitarianism,' which is a different philosophical variation? "weasly" doesn't describe it - very confusingly worded is more accurate.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's inferior legacy text. It has no (and never had any) citations, so it's fair game to eliminate. WP:V I think it came from the "Equalism" article that I investigated and found wanting... I left it in case whoever was building the "Equalism" article and its redirects wanted to speak up and defend their work. (I put the "Semantics" header on the section, which is the only subject I could see unifying the paragraph.) I've been ignoring it while questing across Wikipedia for actual articles on the international policy and goal of gender equality, and adding them to See Also, so that users will at least have somewhere further to go for research. And, a more complete article could grow from these.
Sometimes I find it's all right to leave in inferior legacy text, if it's connecting parts of an article which would be less clear without it (like my struggles with Immortality). But I think this one is distractingly unhelpful. If no one does anything about it before I'm back from Real Life in July, I'll remove it myself. Cheers, Yamara [[User_@/http://
talk:Yamara|✉]] 02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender equality vs. Gender inequality

I can't see any serious reason to keep Gender equality and Gender inequality as two distinct articles. The current articles differ in their focus but this is mainly because they were written by different others with different ideas, intentions and expertise. The articles almost suggest that the term "equality" is used only in reference to economic development whereas the term "inequality" is only used in a more sociological aspect. This is incorrect and misleading. The articles should be merged so that strengths of both articles can be combined into a more thorough overview of these issues. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Qualified Oppose: Gender inequality is a long-standing sociological phenomenon, with roots in history, biology, etc., influencing every aspect of human life. Gender equality is only one widely proposed goal or solution set to the injustices of the former—there are other approaches to gender inequality than its eradication or alleviation.
Much more needs to be done for the Gender equality article, as its economic aspect is only one facet of the goal. The See also wikilinks provide ample material about the development of the concept in the fields of religion and law, and expansion on the term based on its history could make a good first step in expanding this article.
Other than that, at the highest level of global diplomacy and international law, "gender equality" is a term of art designated to specific goals, with conscious economic, legal, and sociological implications (cf. "gender mainstreaming"). This is one serious reason: a highly notable use should not be overwhelmed by detailing its inverse within its article. (I had removed a section, after tagging it for a couple months, that had a discussion of gender equality in semantic terms, but was unreferenced and likely POV.)
I am qualifying my opposition to a merger in that some discussion of, and wikilinks to, Gender inequality here would certainly be helpful. But the focus of these articles are distinct:
  • Gender inequality is a long-standing once-universal condition of the past and present.
  • Gender equality, for a notable selection of people, is a goal of the present and future. —Yamara ✉ 08:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

CatSnads: I agree with the above article as it makes perfect sense and people researching this area would only need one window open to have their infromation in front of the as opposed to two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.151.5 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge by Faunas reverted, AGF; no consensus for 11 months on this issue, no response to my points above before the attempted merge. Merge tags removed, since it's been 10-11 months with no discussion. -Yamara ✉ 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

symbol?

The picture shows a "generic symbol for gender equality," but there's no info about the symbol in the article? Шизомби (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else disagree with this title: Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)?

On the Talk page I've just said it is sexist and patronising beyond belief to have this title, because it suggests that this women is only definable by reference to her husband. Can you please leave your thoughts to have this moved to an alternate title? Thanks, Wikidea 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It now redirects to Sarah Jane Brown; I have no idea since when. --Thnidu (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Gender equality and health

The Swedish study mentioned in the article is one study that seems to contradict other studies that show benefits to health from higher gender equality. I haven't read these studies but have seen them referenced in Jämställdhet och folkhälsa 2009 (Swedish) (Gender Equality and Public Health 2009) by Karolinska institutet. Among those studies are Kawachi I, Kennedy BP, Gupta V, Prothrow-Stith D. Women's status and the health of women and men: A view from the States. Social Science & Medicine 1999, 48(1): 21–32 and Stanistreet D, Bambra C, Scott-Samuel A. Is patriarchy the source of men's higher mortality? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005, 59: 873–876.

Thus mentioning the Swedish study as it's presented now may be WP:UNDUE. Some comment about the connection between gender equality and public health has it's place in the article, but it should better reflect the scientific consensus.Sjö (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

UNICEF?

UNICEF defines gender equality as "levelling the playing field for girls and women by ensuring that all children have equal opportunity to develop their talents."

Uh, couple of problems here. One, surely gender equality is about so much more than equal opportunity for children? Why, there's so many more problems than that. So how necessary is it to keep this plainly incorrect definition, really? Second, how can a sentence so biased towards women exist in gender equality? Gender equality is about more than "levelling the playing field" for girls and women, it's also about levelling the playing field for boys and men. All in all I don't think that sentence represents the concept very well, and I think it's too irrelevant to the article to remain here. Thoughts? Styrofoamblade (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed that text, since I couldn't find it on the UNICEF web site. The current text is more along the lines of what you wrote. As an aside, using "defines" in this context is misleading.Sjö (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

iagree....! it should be non bias at both the end when it comes to levelling of the gender at this point Udyankapadia (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Equivalence not Equality !

The word equality has tended to be bamboozled into use, without specifying the relevant parameters. Equivalence is the correct term. If this becomes recognized, more intelligible discussion is possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added on 14 June 2013 by 146.90.177.25 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a suggestion for the article, or is that just a comment on the discussion about gender equality? Sjö (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

History

How can the biological differences between men and women be shared? I understand what is meant. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Women's education in Saudi Arabia

{{ Talk Page Contribution | course = Education Program:University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (Spring 2014) | term = Spring 2014 }} The article I will be writing is part of a course assignment for an economics course at the University of Utah. This topic is important because in surrounding middle eastern countries, there seems to be a great deal of advancement towards women's equality in social, economical, and educational systems. However, in Saudi Arabia there seems to be inequality in education between men and women. In the planned article I want to discuss; why there is segregation in the educational system in Saudi Arabia, how segregation in the educational system in Saudi Arabia effecting women, the progress for women's equality in education in Saudi Arabia, and what the segregation of education means for women in Saudi Arabia when they enter the labor force. I want to discuss a couple categories with subcategories such as the inequality of education with some points of interest as to the why, how, and understanding of the segregation in education, followed by a category of the inequality in the labor market in Saudi Arabia with subcategories of why, how, and understanding of the segregation in the labor market. If there is any way I could get feedback as to what might improve the planned article from editors I would greatly appreciate it. BrendonPorter (BrendonPorter) 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC) BrendonPorter (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A brief critique of the focus on women and womens rights in a topic centered on equality

I find it mildly unsettling that in an article purporting to center around equality I found only one brief paragraph talking about men. I find it equally disturbing that at no point in this article was there mention of gender equality as it relates to conviction rates as well as sentencing. This is a brief concern and I may come back to it to attempt to shed some light on the masculine sex, but for now I simply state it as a critique on the female centered view of this article. In summary, I would simply like to call attention to this article, as I believe it to be gender biased.Asclepius94 (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Asclepius

This article presents gender equality in regard to women's rights because that is how it is presented in reliable sources. Gender equality is described by all international organizations - the UN, the Council of Europe, the European Union, etc - in terms of the need for women's emancipation. It is women who are denied legal, not to talk about social, rights all over the world. Millions of women live in countries where they cannot even work for money, access medical care, and in some cases even get out of the home without the consent of the husband. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with marriage laws around the world. Women in many countries do not have equal inheritance, property and land rights. The international consensus is that women are oppressed and lack rights, not men. The only people who object to this are men's rights activists, but Wikipedia is not MRA's personal site dedicated to their fringe ideas.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B4BD (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, the article is about gender equality: we're not talking about discrimination against women - we're talking about equal treatment. Violence against women, access to education, salary differences etc. are all valid issues - and since they're the most commonly thought of, they should get a large portion of the content per WP:WEIGHT. But inequality is also about treating people differently in more subtle ways: there are prejudices against both genders. For instance, if I say the word "criminal" (or "rapist", "murderer", "pedophile" etc.), you'll probably think of a male. I won't comment on whether this particular article requires more male focus, as reverse discrimination articles such as male rape and domestic violence against men exist, but "gender equality" is different to "women's rights". Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: And I strongly object to you calling it a "fringe idea" - I agree that women are discriminated in many ways and that there are serious issues there. But I would also say that segregation, stereotypes and stigmata can affect males as well as females in a negative way. Men wanting to do ballet, knit or play the flute may struggle, if not from direct teasing, from perceptions of what others might/would/do think. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Egalitarianism is listed in General issues

Egalitarianism states that that all people should be treated as equals. If you apply egalitarianism to gender or sex you get gender egalitarianism which is a synonym to gender equality. Since egalitarianism does nothing that can be considered sexists I see no reason for having it listed under issues.--Machm (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Issues are not necessarily negative. Not everything listed there is negative. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Section "Post-war era" - unsourced, WP:OR, biased and inappropriate; it should be removed/rewritten

Section "Post-war era" reads:

"In the 1960s, a more general movement for gender equality developed based on women's liberation and feminism. The central issue was that the rights of women should be the same as of men. This movement was triggered by
During the Second World War, the general departure of able-bodied men to the theatres of war required women to take up "male" roles on a large scale. This development was avidly co-opted by communist and left-wing forces since it represented a major collapse of established social structures, a principal aim of communism. The landed classes had been declining in influence in Europe since the first world war; the second world war resulted in the withdrawal of the western powers and of western capital from their erstwhile colonies, and the decline of the landed classes in those colonies. Leftism therefore was on a roll across the world, and feminism progressed apace with it.
In the post-colonial era, the European powers felt the need to institute new forms of control across the world, and established numerous multi-national agencies for this purpose, most prominently the United Nations Organization and its affiliates, and tasked them with molding the development of the third world in a direction expedient to the west. Newly independent societies were to be streamlined and standardized in harmony with the supposed blessings derived from the European renaissance; the colonial project of de-culturing subject societies and re-molding them on these lines was transferred to the international agencies. Projection of the cultural superiority of the west was indispensable to maintaining an imitative mentality and derivative market in the former colonies, and the status of women proved a surpassingly useful tool to these ends. The communist bloc, fattened with many pickings both in eastern Europe and the former colonies, had to deal with its own existing subject societies and internal diversities. They therefore participated fully in this project."

The whole text is unsourced, WP:OR, biased and inappropriate. It should be removed/rewritten.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:5679:42A6 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I did that. And thanks, "IP User", for putting the above 2 paragraphs here on the Talk page, where they can be found easily again. For7thGen (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Our terrible WP display of changes made

I'm truly ashamed of our terrible WP display of changes made. When any rearranging of paragraphs is done, WP just mindlessly compares the old paragraphs (on the left) with the newly arranged paragraphs on the right, and the result is often complete garbage. So I just went back and redid my changes to this article today, to help other editors see what I did. I first redid all my rearranging in one extra step. Then I redid my changes, expecting that WP would mindlessly display each (rearranged) old paragraph on the left next to its newly-changed version on the right. But WP still mis-compared (ie, mis-displayed) some of them! Mindless might be okay, then all I'd have to do is completely separate my rearrangings (in one step) from my rewording changes (in a different step). What we have now seems even worse than mindless! For7thGen (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are a difficult challenge for computer programmers. You might want to read about it at Help:diff. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Shakers

The above one-word title for this History sub-section simply does not help the WP readers enough. My title, "Shakers, an example of gender equality", helps our readers by focussing on this important aspect of the Shakers, the sub-section's subject. User:EvergreenFir evidently feels that "the subject of the article", gender equality, should not be included in a heading, referencing bullet 1 of MOS:HEAD, which I'll cut-and-paste here to help this discussion:

  • Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)

I am replying to this editor that the Shakers are in fact an example of "the subject of the article" but that my title is functional (by helping our readers) rather than redundant, as follows:

Yes, a careful reader with good comprehension who reads this section, with just the one-word title above it, will eventually understand that the Shakers were or are an example of gender equality. But if my title appears above this section, the reader's job is made easier and faster––just imagine you are the reader, with the alternative titles above the sub-section. So my title functionally helps the reader rather than "refer(ring) redundantly to the subject of the article".

I believe EvergreenFir is trying to help our readers, the same as I am, and I hope this editor will now agree that my title is helpful rather than being redundant. And that my title is fine with regard to the rest of MOS:HEAD, of course. Always trying to help the readers, For7thGen (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally prefer the title "Shakers" - it is concise, and I think your title is at least slightly redundant, as well as somewhat unnecessarily lengthy. The article is about gender equality, so it is implied that Shakers have something to do with gender equality and "an example of", I feel, does not add much detail to that. The first sentence under the heading ends "were early practitioners of gender equality"; I would say that makes it more clear why they deserve a place in the article than the longer heading does. Both headings convey similar things, and I would prefer the short one - simply "Shakers". Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 06:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Add critique against male circumcision in 3.8 Harmful Traditional Practices

Male circumcision on children is a practice that many male equality debaters are against, just as people are against female mutilation. The normal argument is that this is something that every individual should be able to choose for themself when they are old enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommten (talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gender equality" not "feminism"

I could be mistaken, but i believe the title of this article is "Gender equality", not "Feminism". Disregarding Gender_equality#Humankind's_underlying_gender_biases and it's non-neutral language, the Gender_equality#Efforts_to_fight_inequality exclusively features actions and legislation put in place to promote female equality to males, making information on the page essentially a copy of the information on Feminism. Regardless of how people might feel about the Men's rights movement, since this is an article about equality between genders, not of one in relation to others, major issues from that movement should at least be mentioned. By not having them in the article, you are skewing the meaning of the page itself. This is an encyclopedia that informs people about things, and it cannot achieve that goal if it is only representing one side of a movement.

One example of this that really annoys me is the section on "Harmful Traditional Practices", which starts off with "...committed primarily against women" and goes downhill in neutrality from there. It neglects to mention tribal traditions like the bullet ant gloves that boys are forced to don as a rite of passage in the Sateré Mawé tribe in Brazil (this tradition requires that they complete the 10–minute process over 20 times during the course of several months). For such an obvious and well–known example of harmful traditional practices that target males to be left out of the appropriate section on the Gender Equality article is a clear example of bias. For the sake of the integrity of the encyclopedia, please add male examples to all subsections that can be found to have male equivalents.


Additionally, it would be worth noting that there have been movements to expand gender equality to non-traditional genders, such as trans men, trans women, etc, and add some of these genders' organizations' actions to the appropriate subsection.

Crossark (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The "primarily against women" bit was cited to a reliable source; however, the sentence was actually copied word-for-word from the reference, so I've rephrased it. The source also says "Younger women are the main victims although men are also sometimes affected", so I've mentioned this.
To give men equal coverage in the subsection (or whole article), where damage against them may not be equal would be undue weight, so if reliable sources show it affects women more than men, they should receive more attention in the article. On the other hand, I have added a small paragraph using the bullet ant example you suggested, as I agree that men can still be affected by tribal traditions. Please feel free to edit any of my changes or the rest of the article if you feel there's anything biased that misrepresents or omits information from reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 14:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Girls' access to education

UNFPA defines gender equality as "Education is important for everyone, but it is especially significant for girls and women. This is true not only because education is an entry point to other opportunities, but also because the educational achievements of women can have ripple effects within the family and across generations. Investing in girls' education is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty."

Please delete this UNFPA statement and find a better one (with gender-neutral language) because it isn't about gender equality. Gender equality mean that you doesn't make difference beetween males and females, education is human rights issue and it have to be accessible for everyone regardless of gender. You can't say that someones education is more useful than others. Furhtermore this statement is very one-sided because it's mentions only poverty reduction as an positive effect, but there are others for example higher education means lower crime rate. — Unsigned comment written by User:Jla158 on 17 January; manually signed by User:Bilorv.

First of all, thank you for not reverting again and discussing this. Secondly, on talk pages you should sign your comments by using the code ~~~~ so people know who has written what — see WP:SIGNATURE.
The quote doesn't seem to be listed on UNFPA's website today, although can still be seen with archives. Because it's not currently on there, I've removed the quote and replaced it with something that is currently displayed on the website. However, even if you disagree with the quote, it should still be included in the article because it came from a reliable source. You might think that an article about gender equality should only use gender-neutral language, and not focus unnecessarily on women, but we must give due weight to what reliable sources say. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 20:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Men's rights and Womens rights.

This definition of Gender Equality seems different to Google [1] and Oxford Dictionary [2].

"Gender equality, also known as sex equality, gender egalitarianism, sexual equality or equality of the genders, is the view that men and women should receive equal treatment". Why is gender divided into men and women? What about non binary people? or the indeterminate gender status? [3] or the Australian "no gender" status ? [4]. This article assumes the only genders are men and women.

"The related topic of rights is treated in two separate articles, Men's rights and Women's rights." - This sentence at the start of the article seems illogical. How can rights be divided into men's rights and women's rights? Gender Equality is a state where rights are unaffected by a person's gender. Pregnant Transmales who identify as men must have the same rights as cisgendered women in a state of gender equality

80.111.246.210 (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Alexis Christian

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=define+gender+equality
  2. ^ http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender-equality
  3. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483441/Germany-country-allow-parents-register-gender-babies-indeterminate-sex.html
  4. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/norrie-given-nonspecific-gender-status-in-unanimous-australian-high-court-verdict-9233231.html
The dictionary definition is not adequate here. It does adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we can and do have broader statements of what a topic is about. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a dictionary , it is an encyclopedia. I'm not replacing the UN definition, I'm including the dictionary / Google definition for the reasons above. There are more legally recognized genders than male and female. Like you said, Wikipedia has broader statements about what a subject is - so why does this article only state one definition from a 1997 report? 80.111.246.210 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Alexis Christian
The version without the changes that 80.111 is trying to insert reads better. Also we don't usually just crib our definitions from Google because it may be a copyright violation. gobonobo + c 16:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
At the moment the lead is taken entirely from a 1997 United Nations report - is that not a potential copyright violation. WP:BADPOV and misleading edit summaries go against the pillar of neutrality 80.111.246.210 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Alexis Christian

I think it wisest to acknowledge within the article's lead that there are other genders, and to clarify why they should not be included in this article. (For clarity and brevity, ie, to avoid complication.)

The above paragraph is my Edit Summary from 19 April 2015, when I added a sentence in the article's lead, to that effect, to help our readers. Always trying to do so, For7thGen (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I beleive it is actually contrary to, and highly unfortunate that, gender equality is defined as the equity of only two genders rather than the equity of all genders within a text about gender equality. The argument of "For clarity and brevity, ie, to avoid complication." does not exactly explain why we are not discussing other genders, nor does it properly provide resources for which one may find information about the exculded subject matter, nor does it provide clarity and brevity. In failing to define gender equity properly it actually complicates the matter more by causing a long and hard search among the various other pages concerning gender and finding information about the struggles for equity within those. It would be more simple to have a section (or sections, as needed) concerning the issue of other genders as it relates to this topic and appropriately link to more imformative articles with information concerning them. In addition, the definition used is actually contrary to the sentance following it, as the UDHR clearly states that "ALL" people are entitled to equality.

Furthurmore, The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate. An assumption that readers will be confused or find it complicating that there is a section concerning other genders or a more universal definition keeps them from easily accesable knowledge. I highly insist that this article encompass more genders, and understandinding the lack of knowledge concerning the very concept of other genders, that we create a section about it and include the proper information. Most Importantly, I propose to ammend the definition of Gender Equality to, simply, include the notion of other genders. frcstr 20:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeated reverts by IP 80.111.220.238

Plese see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_80.111.220.238_.28repeated_reverts_at_Gender_equality.29 about the edit conflict.

See also the talk page of of Special:Contributions/80.111.220.238. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B738 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
And also see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#IP_80.111.220.238_-_repeated_reverts_at_Gender_equality. 08:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
This discussion needs to focus on article content (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc), instead of procedures. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Violence against women

I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, or I'd do it myself, but from what I've read domestic violence against men points out that this is a serious issue as well and seem entirely relevant in an article that details efforts to attain gender equality. The huge disparity in handling domestic violence situations has been the subject of significant reporting and academic study; off the top of my head I can recall this paper from Australia and this report from the UK, and this article detailing the lack of help abused men receive compared to women, and there are plenty more studies out there. The existing prose in this section also has a very clear point of view showing through in the text, and while this point of view should have a very prominent part of this article—it has driven much of the discussion on the issue of domestic violence—it shouldn't have exclusive representation and should be written in a tone that doesn't suggest an attempt to right great wrongs (however noble this cause may be outside of Wikipedia). This article as a whole needs an absolutely massive overhaul, as much of it reads like only-in-academia dreck (Exhibit A being the lengthy diatribe about bathrooms in the giant tl;dr wall of text in the Underlying gender biases section, the relevance of which entirely eludes me), but taking it one section at a time seems a lot more workable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The "point of view" presented here is that of international bodies (such as the UN), international instruments, and the European Court of Human Rights. This is what belongs here, not the POV of men's rights activists. You're free to add information to the men's rights article if you want. So far the European Court of Human Rights has stated that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination against women. So far the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) states the same. The United Nations 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women says the same. We go with what they state, not with the view of men's rights activists. To make it clear: all violence is wrong, but while male violence against women is internationally recognized as a form of discrimination against women, an obstacle to achieving gender equality, and both a cause and consequence of women's subordinate role in society; women's violence against men is not recognized as such (such violence is simply wrong because it is violence, but it is not a question of gender equality, the subject of this article).2A02:2F01:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:F82E (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The papers I linked to (the Guardian story aside) are not MRAs, they're national studies that conclude there is a substantial gender inequality in that area and frame it as discrimination against men. It would only need about a paragraph to explain. And the text goes way beyond summarizing the international organization's point of view and is rather clearly advocacy in places—the bald assertion about patriarchy being the root of all violence against women being an example—which is not what Wikipedia articles are for. (An aside; Catharine MacKinnon is a pretty extreme person on this subject to be so heavily relying on; drastically paring that back will definitely be part of an overhaul) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you can find papers on anything you want. But that's not enough: what you must find is an international academic consensus on something; an important international body; or international court of law saying it. Not an obscure paper.2A02:2F01:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:F82E (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
According to who, you? The article doesn't set any such parameters, it's not titled "Gender equality according to the UN" or similar. It can certainly mention that multiple national (and subnational) agencies have concluded this is an issue. Besides, it was only a very cursory glance. And it still doesn't address the issues with the existing text. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If not me,Who?If not now,When?

I have recently done a complete research on this topic and have realized that it is a very sensitive topic.This article is basically published Feminism specifically The HeForShe Campaign.I read the speech of Emma Watson and have conclusion that something has to be done.We need to start with it.We need to make a difference.By reading this article,even if the mindset of one person is changed,I will consider my mission accomplished.

Irrelevant philosophical platitudes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To begin with,first I have a question.What is the difference between MEN and Women?They have the same two hands,two legs,one nose,two ears,two eyes.They are all humans.They live on the same Mother Earth.They breathe the same air.The sun does differentiate between Men and Women,he never gives more sunlight to men or vice versa.Both men and women when die,are buried in the same soil,THEN WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION? It is US.We have made this difference.We are the reason behind all this.We need to change our mindset and transform this earth where there is justice,equality and peace. Today,the CEO's of the top companies of the world are women.When women themselves want to come up,why are they denied these rights? We need to come up with a solution. I have one. We need to start with ourselves.Start treating women as equals,the same as men,only difference in appearances.And if you anybody discriminating between the two genders,just try not to rude and ask politely "Can you please tell me the difference between men and women.Don't they have the same eyes,nose,ears,hands,legs,face.Are their brain capacities different?Well,then let me tell you,according to the recent studies,Women have sharper memories than men." I do not mean that men are inferior or something but it's just that we need to encourage women. I am sorry if I have hurt someone's sentiments but this is the reality and this article was very much needed. So,from today itself,treating women as natural human beings. Thank You.

Asthamamtani (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Astha

Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have specific changes in mind please suggest them, this talkpage is only for discussions on article improvement. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Gender biases

I have gutted this section and reconstructed a small piece of it. A good deal of it was incredibly tortured analogies that added exactly nothing to the subject of gender equality, and most of the rest was grossly undue weight to Western feminism. This perspective obviously has a large place in the article, and I think a good deal of it could be reworked and neatly incorporated into the article; the problem was that, instead of presenting it as the point of view of Western feminists, in a lot of places it read as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice, which is not what neutral writing is about. This is not a women's studies journal, it's a general use encyclopedia, and as such there is no reason to veer into such arcana as ranting about how equality in bathrooms is symbolic of some larger problem with secret sexism. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you're very quick to make accusations of WP:OWN, as you did above here on talk (section on violence against women) but you see no problem with cutting huge parts of the article (from the Underlying gender biases section) without any prior discussion (let alone WP:CONS). 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:D547 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I claim no ownership of the article, it's simply being bold. I took the liberty of skipping the R part of BRD and opening up discussion. Anyone is of course free to revert my edits, including yourself, if you think it's an improvement; I'm not one to get int revert wars. Using TNT and reconstructing things from the foundation up is my preferred style in general, and I indeed meant (even if I didn't say it very well the first time) that there are some salvageable pieces.I have every intention of going through and slowly readding things, but I certainly won't object if you or someone else does it before I do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Format and flow

I provided a little copy editing to the additions of User:Stanley.372, which were quite poorly formated and written, but they still need a lot of work.2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:524D:A610 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

This article appears befitting of a criticism section. It certainly seems sufficiently contentious to be sufficiently contentious to have criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.42.216 (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender equality. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Overview

The overview or summary of this article doesn't mention the efforts to fight inequality content, which is a big part of this page. However, it does mention a lot of information that does not seem biased. There are sources to back up the information presented in this article, and it seems to be neutral. I didn't really find bias toward a particular position. Meza s1 (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the gender biases section supposed to be?

I'm confused on why it's an outside topic of Efforts to fight inequality. What is it supposed to say? Why is it an entire new section? Dvalentine (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Overall questions and suggestions

- The article feels a little too weighted towards women in gender equality rather than focusing on the efforts to both men and women in this topic. - Also there is little mention to race and ethnicity, which is a major factor in this topic. Does not to be biased, but there should be mention of how there are different levels of gender equality and how people of different races have to work even harder for equality. An example that portrays this fact is Janet Mock's book "Redefining Realness" [1] - Also I believe that this article needs add more sections that talk about individual countries because there are so many different cultures that view gender equality differently. So I think this would allow people to understand the different issues that go on around the world and think of solutions that could benefit all people around the world. [2] Seymou r1 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue is WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Seymou r1: I've added the {{talkref}} template to this section to keep the citations here, rather than sticking them at the bottom of the page in whatever happens to be the last entry. --Thnidu (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mock, Janet. Redefining realness: My path to womanhood, identity, love & so much more. Simon and Schuster, 2014.
  2. ^ Moghadam, Valentine M. Modernizing women: Gender and social change in the Middle East. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003.

Contextualization of lead

The lead as it stands contains four sentences:

Gender equality [...] is the view that everyone should receive equal treatment and not be discriminated against based on their gender.

This is one of the objectives of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seeks to create equality in law and in social situations, such as in democratic activities and securing equal pay for equal work.

In practice, the objective of gender equality is for people to acquire, if they so choose, equal treatment throughout a society, not just in politics, the workplace, or any other policy-designated sphere.

To avoid complication, genders besides women and men will not be discussed in this article.

I suppose this would be fine if the page title were "Gender equality (United Nations social policy)".

I don't wish to wade into the politics of editing this particular page, so I will make only this one contribution. Here is a version of the lead, pretty much off the top of my head, that I feel comes far closer to providing a proper encyclopedic frame. I realize that the last paragraph becomes a bit esoteric to those who never think at the systems theoretic level (I would not expect it to survive a consensus edit in this form), but that happens to be who I am, so that's how I wrote it.


Gender equality [...] is the progressive ideal that men and women should receive equal treatment in the public sphere and not experience social discrimination based on their biological sex or gender identity. It is a major component of a broad equal rights agenda opposed to historical norms that the worth of a person can be usefully approximated by sex, sexual preference, racial background, religious identity, culture, social cast, or economic status.

While many countries—especially modern industrial nations with democratic governance, universal suffrage, and secular law—have reformed their legal codes to prohibit discrimination on these grounds, these stereotypes retain cultural force, and full equality has yet to be realised in practical terms in many dimensions. In some countries (Rwanda, Cuba, Sweden, Iceland) women have gained equal representation in elected office, or achieved parity in post-secondary education (Canada, probably some Nordics), but in almost all cases remain far below equal representation in the executive ranks of large corporations. Countries with a prophetic legal tradition, such as Islamic sharia, are typically less progressive on women's rights. Even after comprehensive legal reform, countries with a patriarchal tradition have been slow to achieve full economic parity between men and women.

Gender equality is one of the objectives of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seeks to create equality in law and in social situations, such as in democratic activities and securing equal pay for equal work.

It is one thing for women to gain equal status under the law. It is another thing for women to achieve equal status in practical terms. For this purpose, affirmative action or positive action is often proposed; if carried too far, this can itself amount to a form of reverse discrimination.

Gender equality remains controversial, as well, because neither gender nor equality are simple ideas. Historically, men and women were distinguished by sex. But even this basic biological distinction admits shades of grey due to the biological reality of human hermaphroditism, which OHCHR designates as intersex for the purpose of political discourse. All human societies throughout history have dealt with this issue, usually through a cultural norm of sex assignment at birth or an early age. Societies recognizing a third gender in this connection go back as far as the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indic cultures.

In modern times, sex has become differentiated from "gender"—a term drawn from gender categories in linguistics by sexologist John Money in 1955—now commonly used to separate out the psychological and sociological aspects of gender identity. As personal identity has become increasingly liberated from cultural conformance, people transcend the binary categories of sex and sexual orientation in nearly limitless ways.

Equality, too, is more complex than it first appears. Reforming a country's legal code largely satisfies equality of process, but does not necessarily satisfy equality of outcome—or equality of outcome, left to its own, might lag for an unacceptable length of time by the standards of some interest group. Formal standards to define equality of outcome are contentious, because outcomes are conditioned on desires, and humans remain sexually dimorphic in important ways. Helena Cronin boils this down—across the vast majority of species since the dawn of sexual reproduction, including humans—to females being specialized for caring and relationships, and males being specialized for competition (especially the competition of attracting mates).[1]. Furthermore, the economic principle of comparative advantage (which underlies much of global trade) tends to magnify, rather than level out, small initial differences.

Complex systems, including complex social systems, even if beginning from equitable principles, are likely to evolve toward inequality by analogy with the physical principle of symmetry breaking. It is not the nature of stochastic or ergodic processes to manifest equality along any given split at a given time. If enough partitions are contemplated, a complex system will pretty much never exhibit equality along all dimensions at the same time—even when no discriminatory mechanism is present. It is therefore difficult, on philosophical grounds, to justify mandating equality from outcome alone in an otherwise free society. Less difficult is to deliberately counteract, by political means, forms of social discrimination that quite evidently continue to exist—much discrimination is far from subtle—though it remains contentious precisely what metric should be employed to judge success in these public policy initiatives. At its most polarized, the debate devolves into a culture war concerning liberalism and political correctness.

— MaxEnt 20:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@MaxEnt: I've added the {{talkref}} template to this section to keep the citations here, rather than sticking them at the bottom of the page in whatever happens to be the last entry. --Thnidu (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cronin, Helena (1 January 2017). "Sex". edge.org. Edge Foundation. Retrieved 6 January 2017.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gender equality. 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:

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) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

§ Organizations and ministries

An IP edit to § Organizations and ministries deleted a couple of items and added a couple of others. The article is under pending changes protection. I accepted the edit, with the intention of restoring one or both of the deleted groups.

CBE holds that any interpretation of scripture that prohibits women from using their spiritual gifts and abilities in ministry constitutes injustice. CBE defines injustice as an abuse of power, taking from others freedom, dignity, resources, and even life itself. CBE considers gender discrimination within the church to be an injustice that harms the Christian church at large and Christian ministry in the world. The organization sees as its call to be part of God's mission in opposing injustice as required in Scriptures such as Galatians 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (TNIV).

  • Not restored: International Society for Peace. Their website is minimal and says almost nothing about them. A websearch turns up truckloads of hits for "International Societ[ies] for Peace [and whatever]". Too much to dig through.

--Thnidu (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Notes/References and cleanup

Hi all! I'm here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism. I'm trying to clean up the references section, it's pretty messy. I'm also noticing a lot of the references are notes, so I'm trying to divide those up a bit for clarity. HelloStarling (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The more I move 'examples' into notes the more weasel-wording of this article becomes glaringly obvious. Many of the statements made are over-sourced for the level of ambiguity they provide. Many of these notes can be re-written into single sentences and worked into the article more fluidly or deleted altogether. HelloStarling (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've separated citations into sources and references. Sources are only used in the notes. References are used in the body of the article. By doing this, I've discovered a large fraction of references used in this article are one-time additions for quotes or studies and other single-sentences that crowd the piece. I haven't deleted anything yet, but I think this article has been victim to a lot of hit and runs additions. HelloStarling (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@HelloStarling: Wow. Thank you for all the work you're putting into this. I may be doing some c/e on it, but not during your edit sessions. Seeing that the last edit was some hours ago, I just made a couple small tweaks to the lede. And I do mean small for what I'll be doing: copyediting, which I can do, but not content, in which you know a great deal, obviously, and I know almost none here. -- Thnidu (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll take down the big edit notice now. It seems that things have been moved into a good place to work from and now a discussion needs to happen on the direction of the piece! If you want to jump in feel free :) HelloStarling (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Violence Against Women/Reproductive Health

In future, please do not put references to rape under reproductive health. Rape is a violent act. For the moment I have moved it to the violence against women section, but I hope to change that soon. It is also not singularly a women's issue. I propose restructuring this section to link out to the pages that cover these issues in greater detail. HelloStarling (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Soc 314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment

The facts on your article are cited with an appropriate reference link. Nothing in this article really distracted me from the points you were making, all of the topics are important to the article. Good job. Cjmass5 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gender equality. 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:

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) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender equality. 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:

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) 10:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gender equality. 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:

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) 02:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

new section Political Gender Equality

@Lean Anael: (Nice palindrome, by the way.) The section you just added, Political Gender Equality is very narrowly focused:

In history there have been two major successful movements that have implemented political gender equality. One has been the Kurdish movement in southeastern Turkey led by the Democratic Regions Party (DBP) and the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP). And the other is also a Kurdish movement in Northern Syria which has been led by the Democratic Union Party (PYD).

Really? No other major movements in history that have succeeded in implementing political gender equality? And in fact the Turkish government is actively suppressing the movement there, according to one of your own references:[1]

Early in November [2016], though, the Turkish government cracked down on the H.D.P. — the third-largest political party in the country’s most recent national elections, where it won six million votes — jailing 10 of its members of Parliament, including its male and female co-leaders.

I've added a paraphrase about the crackdown from that article.

Also, you cite Wikipedia itself as a source for another statement:

The mayorships of 2 metropolitan areas and 97 towns[2] are led jointly by a man and a woman, both called co-mayors.

Wikipedia's not a journal, it's an encyclopedia, and it does not allow citing itself; that would be like saying "It's true, because I say it's true." I have removed that citation and replaced it with {{citation needed}}. Why not use the source from that article?... Oh dear, it's 404 NOT FOUND.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nordland, Rod (2016-12-07). "Crackdown in Turkey Threatens a Haven of Gender Equality Built by Kurds". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-01-23.
  2. ^ "Turkish local elections, 2014". Wikipedia. 2018-01-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_equality/Archive_1&oldid=1090559220"