| Revision as of 03:33, 22 March 2015 editThe ed17 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators73,723 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:09, 22 March 2015 edit undoResident Mario (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,332 edits Hard reset.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | Internal discussion hard-wiped. No soapboxes post-publication, please. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333" size="2">]</font></b><font color="#444" size="2">]</font></span> 05:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::* The part ''Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work.'' - That was ] who said it. I take her word for it. --] (]) 07:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| .Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. While I'm very sure that it was unintentional (really, I can't stress enough that I'm ''not'' blaming or mad at you or anything like that), I don't feel that it should be in a description. Is that alright? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then I simply have to say, I do not agree. Which part ot the :''Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise. Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work.'' - is sexist? It was maybe a joke, but part of it was serious. I am going to reinstate either way the: ''Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise.'' - | |||
| ::Can't find ANYTHING offensive with this. Not a word, not one single word of it. About the part '''Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work... ''' - I don't find it ] at all. I what wat is this sexist? ON THE CONTRARY: In this world where people only look for women who are young, beautiful and all guys try to find YOUNG women, who are willing to look up to them because they are like ten years older and so called wiser and mesures their value in youth and beauty - our friend Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab stands out as a shining star. It is a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. Excellent. Just wonderful. Every woman, every feminist, every person who cares about a woman should applaud this. It is a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeded to won her heart, above all stupid barons, all kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeded to kweep her for long, because she left them. That was no woman who knew nothing about men, I can promise you. I now reinstate the part: ''Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise.''' ] (]) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. The above is not. ] (]) 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I move this discussion to Signpost talk. And if you remove this once more I remove all the enrty and leave nothing but: ''Jane Digby (created by William Charles Ross, nominated by Alborzagros ) This miniature by the artist William Charles Ross portrays the fascinating Jane Digby.'' - That is what I have to say. ] (]) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::For one thing, it used the patronizing word "girls" instead of "ladies" before I changed it. The ''Signpost'' was two days late waiting for FC and we had to make a last minute call late in the evening our time on Friday, and that was the decision we made. We appreciate and value the time all of you take to create FC as it is an important part of the ''Signpost'', but when it is significantly late we have to sacrifice our time at odd hours as well, and we have to make decisions like this without the luxury of being able to discuss them with you before publication. We are willing to discuss editorial decisions with you in private or in public, but delivering public ultimatums is not professional or appropriate. ] <small>(])</small> 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Hi {{u|Hafspajen}}, last night while we were in the process of publishing, we noticed that the summary in question could be perceived differently than we know you intended it. After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did. We certainly do not think you intended it to be "sexist", but as perception is reality, we needed to guard against it being perceived that way. Thanks for understanding. '''] ]]''' 18:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You apparently tell me that you didn't afforded the '''luxury of being able to discuss them with ME before publication''. But you decided to discuss it among yourselves. Now answer me just one question: Do you, Gamaliel, Ed and the guys deciding this - DO you know if I am a man or a woman? Please answer the question with a simple yes or no. ] (]) 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes- | |||
| : No- | |||
| go ahead. ] (]) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::We were all online publishing the Signpost at the same time. The bot is down we had to publish manually, which is laborious and time-consuming, so thankfully others were there to assist me, and we collaborated via a Skype chat. In the process of publishing, someone brought up the passage in question. I have no idea what your gender is and it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. At the time we did not know or discuss who contributed the language in question (which would have required searching the edit history, something we did not do) so it would not have mattered if any of us knew your gender. Our concerns were not with you, your gender, your thoughts, or your intentions, only the language used. We believe your intentions were positive and not negative. ] <small>(])</small> 19:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*You didn't answered the above question. It is not irrelevant in a discussion about being accused of sexism. Not a bit. It is the core of the question. If you don't know - than ''you all made'' the sexist assumption that I am a man making derogatory comments against woman. | |||
| :*If I am a woman, in that case you three are now forcing me to step up and disclose my gender, to defend myself. Because in that case I can't be making sexist remarks, can I? | |||
| :*If I am a man - than I must deffend myself as I did above. | |||
| ::*Wrong in all ways. Either ways - do you wish that I should here and now disclose my gender? If you do, I will. ] (]) 19:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*{{ping|Hafspajen}} No, I most certainly made no assumptions about your gender. What I saw was language that could potentially be construed as sexist, something we've been of missing, and decided to play it safe. Your gender is, to me, immaterial. Best, ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::* No, it is not immaterial. Because if a woman wrote the above - it is not sexist. If a man did it, it is. ] (]) 20:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* {{U|Sagaciousphil}} is a woman. Do you think ] - the above remark is sexist and a derogatory comments against woman? ] (]) 20:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* '''No one has accused anyone of sexism.''' We do not think you are sexist. We disagreed with your choice of language, that is all. At the time we made the decision to change the language, we did not know or care about the gender or identity of the author. You don't have to be sexist to accidentally make a mistake that someone perceives as sexist. ] <small>(])</small> 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*What Gamaliel said. Someone I trust told me that she thought it was sexist, so I took it off, thinking it was an uncontroversial editorial choice that still had an enormously interesting blurb (that's a lot of affairs!). ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* '''How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) : ''' ''Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, '''the last sentence is pretty sexist'''. '' If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. ] (]) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ec}} *Firstly, let me thank Hafspajen for all the work undertaken - I'm sure that was also "laborious and time consuming". Please explain how the comment can be perceived to be "sexist" and by whom? As a British female I just cannot see it. ] - ] 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) And it does come across as Hafspajen being accused as being sexist. ] - ] 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No doubt it was difficult and time-consuming for them, and I have repeatedly praised Hafspajen and others who put together FC for their hard work. Why do you find it so difficult to believe someone would perceive something in FC that wasn't intended by the author? After all, right now you are perceiving an accusation of sexism where there is clearly none. ] <small>(])</small> 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I beg to differ - and I find your comment and tone unbecoming of an Admin. I'm withdrawing from any further participation in this "discussion", it just reminds me of the way certain areas of SignPost are being used. ] - ] 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well... that's a pretty low bar for being unbecoming of an administrator, no? We're trying to maneuver to protect the Signpost from undue accusations, that's all. Clearly the FC team puts in an enormous amount of work each week, and everyone else—especially content contributors—appreciates that. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* '''Ask AGAIN: How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) : ''' ''Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, '''the last sentence is pretty sexist'''. '' If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. ] (]) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* She said the '''sentence''' was sexist, not its author. That is not the same thing. ] <small>(])</small> 21:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*{{ec}} The ''sentence'' was sexist. Not you. I am have written sexist sentences without being a sexist person. These things happen even when we don't intend to. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Näää. Tell me then how the ''sentence'' was sexist. And also who is SHE who said '''She said the '''sentence''' was sexist, not its author''', may I ask. ] (]) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)<sup>Difficult not to perceive it as such, if someone tell you you write sexist things .</sup> | |||
| :::::::* '''Just tell me then how the ''sentence'' was sexist.''' And point me to that discussion you had can't notice any discussion about the topic anywhere, not newsroom or any talkpage. ] (]) 21:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? ] (]) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Was it: Their marriage was happy? ] (]) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? ] (]) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*We asked two women about the passage in question. We are not going to divulge their identities without their permission. ] <small>(])</small> 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*{{ec}} The use of "girls," which has commonly been used as a demeaning term, and the whole concept of demanding that ladies consider younger men for their marriage possibilities. I'm not going to name who gave me the opinion—it would have a chilling effect. This she read the sentence without any context (read: knowing who authored it) and gave an opinion. That's all. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nobody is answering my question ('''girls''' were removed when you removed the bit already, and and yes Ladies were an improvement, thank you Gamaliel) : | |||
| − | |||
| ::::::::Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? ] (]) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| ::::::::Was it: Their marriage was happy? ] (]) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| − | |||
| ::::::::Was it:Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? ] (]) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| :::::::::YOU can answer it without ever telling me who said it. ] (]) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And the context was: Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab was a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. She was forty-six, and he was twenty-six. He was a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeded to won her heart, above all barons, all kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeded to keep her for long, because she left them all and : '''Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise''' - ] (]) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I didn't think it made as much sense without the following context. That said, I probably could have left the "happy" sentence. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *May I? I think its sexism is marginal (for clarity's sake, ), but if I were running the show I wouldn't print it either. Sorry Hafs. Oprah said this? If she did, it was for a very different audience than the Signpost. Besides what I think is marginal sexism, there's tone (but perhaps I'm too formal) and content: it suggests that women always marry men. But yes, "Their marriage was a happy one" could have been left. But let's please realize that "sentence A is sexist" is indeed dependent on context etc., and that no one is accusing no one of being a sexist. ] (]) 22:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Women who are forty-six, together with a guy who is twenty-six are often harrased by society and are indeed regularely facing people making derogatory comments against the woman, yes, '''sexist comments''' from all the others. Oprah said this, yes - when making a program about women living happily together with younger men. Married, living in serious relationships. AND we also made a lot jokes in the Singpost - before. And some women do marry men, the above example was about a man and a woman, and just how are we supposed to bring in same-sex marriage into it? And before anyone starts that part - I am not agains that either. The Swedish church do allow gay marriages. And has woman priests to. All priest-candidates are regularely asked before getting into the program :Do you have anything against to perform blessing or joining together in marriage a gay couple - and if you say, I am against, you are out. ] (]) 22:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::May I add a few comments? I think this discussion is actually about several different things, and they've all gotten tangled. Regardless of what one thinks of the quote, Hafs has told me that s/he was up all night working on the ''Signpost'' - that is, actively editing on WP. If the editors working on the ''Signpost'' is indeed a team, it would have been courteous to ask Hafs what s/he thought before removing the quote. Not asking Hafs may have made him/her feel as if s/he were not an equal member of the team. Also, this is the second time in the last few weeks that I've seen hurt feelings and misunderstanding arise out of a rush to get ''Signpost'' ready for publication in a very short time. Isn't there any way to work ahead a bit so that there is a little more time for discussion before publication? ] (]) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agree with the above comment. It was told, somewhere above: ''After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did''. I agree, why wasn't anyone asking me? I was spending my Saturday that in fact I intended to spend a very diffent way, by editing the Singpost. Circa eight- nine-ten something hours. I was up until dawn, fixing this one and ''''''. . I could have told you the story THEN; instead of NOW, publicly, as you stated above. And about the rest (not '''this''' issue) why - well, my theory is total lack of communication. Nobody knows what the others do or intend to do. ] (]) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::* I thought we were working as a team. I was actively editing all night, so you could have contacted me. I feel it would have been more courteous to ask me before removing the quote than to remove it first and let me find out after publication. Regarding the quote, I do not understand how it can be perceived as sexist. Could somebody please explain to me exactly what in the quote is sexist, and why? ] (]) 02:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Haf, we can't monitor everything that is added while it is being added. We published only minutes after you finished! We're going to start a dialogue this week to get our houses in order (with regards to communication), and I'm very hopeful that {{u|Resident Mario}} will be able to code a bot to significantly lessen the manual labor you all have to to. As for the sexism, {{u|Drmies}} explains it well above. I'd add that "ladies" and "girls" are words that should be used cautiously. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :::::::I mean, I did know, but being clueless in these matters, I did not know would affect the construction of a bot. :-p ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:09, 22 March 2015
Internal discussion hard-wiped. No soapboxes post-publication, please. ResMar 05:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)