Talk:Ban Bossy/Archives/2016

Queen of Thrones

I am wondering if any notable responses to Doc McStuffins addressing bossy have been made in the media yet. I don't know any other references to it in television. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Vague lede

In this edit, Lexlex restored an older version of the lede with the explanation "npov". I don't, however, feel that a blanket restore was helpful to the lede, particularly since subsequent contributions have been made to improve context. For starters "censorship advocacy campaign" is a bit odd, as it implies the movement advocates censorship in general, which isn't exactly correct. I think IP 75.130.155.203's comments above were more on point in describing it as a self-censorship movement. The wording "the mission of eliminating the use of the word 'bossy' from the English language" doesn't strike me as neutrally worded at all. It suggests that they're going out of their way to censor dictionaries or something, rather than encouraging people to remove the word from their own personal databases.

Further, the line "due to the campaign's claim of its perceived harmful effect on young women" is horrendously vague, and "claim" is a loaded word that necessitates care when using. The core idea behind the campaign I think was aptly presented in this phrasing: "The campaign criticizes the use of the word 'bossy' to describe assertive girls and women, on the basis that the word is stigmatizing and may discourage girls and women from seeking positions of leadership." This is far more specific than "its perceived harmful effect on young women" and presents a better picture of what the campaign was trying to achieve. The fact that the lede doesn't even mention the impetus, i.e. that we want more women as leaders, is problematic. I'm making tweaks to the lede thusly: I'm adding self-censorship, and I'm adding something to the effect of "believing that the word is stigmatizing..." because I think that's more neutral than stating "on the basis that the word is stigmatizing", which (my fault) could suggest that it is a fact that the word is stigmatizing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, in this edit I removed "television, radio, and magazine" from the first sentence, because it creates ambiguity. Are the magazines censoring themselves? In other versions it suggested that the Ban Bossy movement was censoring magazines, radio and television, when it appears the intention was to describe where the movement was promoting their campaign, i.e. on television, on radio, and in magazines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The general Idea seems fine to me, however the wording of a campaign "believing" something might suggest the campaign itself is cognisant. Perhaps describe merely the ideas it puts forth. Maybe also note that the underlying concept promoted by the campaign is not currently supported by any published research. Lexlex (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Changed "believing" to "proposing". Is this any better? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed a bit of criticism from a self-published YouTube vlogger and replaced it with a published journalist's criticism. I also removed a few entries from the "see also". They were starting to get a bit POV-ridden, such as "authoritarianism", "newspeak", and "hate speech". If individual editors feel calling someone bossy is an example of hate speech, they can write a blog post about it, but I think we'd need a reliable source to use that term before we include it here. Similarly, I think labels like "authoritarianism" would require a reliable source – not a self-published YouTube blogger. Newspeak is a fictional element from a good book. Doesn't have any relevance here unless a reliable source ties it to the campaign. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)