Talk:Global Gender Gap Report

interpretation

"scores can be interpreted as the percentage of the gap between women and men that has been closed."

I'm not sure the wording of this is right, it suggests to me that the starting point is the gap between men and women that existed at some time. Is that right? If so, what was the original gap and how was it calculated? Was it the same gap for each country? Also, the gap between men and women in what? Alternatively, is the intended meaning something like: "shows the economic well-being of women relative to men in each country, the difference from 100% represents the gap between men and women" -- Phil Barker 06:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If "economic well-being" is intendend meaning then this table will probobly been distributed by gender pay gap ways. But then we will have "problem" that on top will come countries like Italy, Slovenia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Poland...etc....on contrast "women equality blah, blah, bullshit" countries will go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.157.133 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender gap map

There is a mistake in the map image. Sri Lanka should be highlighted in blue! I sense a slight prejudice, just because it's next to India! Look at the percentage, Sri Lanka has 74%. Wikipedia won't even let me upload the corrected image! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveripper (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There were thousands of mistakes in that map. Many counties were colored in who were not even in the report, and several countries did not have the correct colors. I have done my best to redo the map to accurately represent the 2012 data. I am struggling to figure out how to add an image file to Wikipedia, however, so I have instead uploaded it to imgur and hope that someone who reads this will follow through on the last couple steps to replace the outdated and inaccurate travesty we had before. http://i.imgur.com/iRN33.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.85.161.126 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 REPORT

The report is not up to date, as well as maps. The cover is not relevant. I will delete it. --81.105.62.223 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I made an up to date map, but I can't figure out how to add it. If you know how, please do so. The link to it is in the Talk above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.85.161.126 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Regions in the report are not reflected by the article

I noticed there is a huge error in the article. The regions in the article do not reflect the report correctly at all: REPORT LINK --81.105.62.223 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Methodology

"Information about gender imbalances to the advantage of women is explicitly prevented from affecting the score."

Truncating data and thus not affecting the score negatively if the gender gap switches is a direct bias towards men in this statistic. Not only that, large "gender gaps" that discriminate against women are explicitly mentioned to be more heavily penalized.

Just to mention that it's about gender equality and not women's empowerment doesn't make it a gender neutral statistic, as in gender not beeing synonymous to female.

Thus i tried to relativate the above sentence by inserting "is mentioned to be explicitly prevented", which is actually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.48.246 (talk • contribs)

Not to be rude, but I can barely understand what you are trying to say. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider it rude at all since english isn't my first language. I actually can see how people can be fine with that phrase,

it still confuses me it's called a "Gender Gap" report or mentions to be about gender equality when the Methodology directly contradicts that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.48.246 (talk • contribs)

A fair point. It would ideally be called "Women's inequality" or something to that effect, but as an encyclopedia we just report on things. We don't "make policy" we just report on things. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The methodology is so biased or rigged that the wording could be much stronger. Hell, the report ranks Russia's health equality better than that of Sweden though the fact is that the equality is much better in Sweden even according to the data in the report. Typical Feminist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.191.141 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The article describes the Gender gap index as if it measured gender gaps even when the article itself says it doesn't. Kudos to the person who had the guts to tell the facts! And I'm impressed that the part hasnät been removed. Nevertheless, it would be fair to say the truth more clearly.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Global Gender Gap Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130405044225/http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2009.pdf to http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Global Gender Gap Report. 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/20081113001001/http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/index.htm to http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405044225/http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2009.pdf to http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2009.pdf

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) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is Taiwan missing?

Why is there no data on Taiwan? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan is missing because there is no reference to this island in any of the GGG reports. May could not have considered because of the lack of international recognition as country due to the political status of Taiwan (preventing to have access to international associations like the UN), issues with China about recognition of Taiwan as country, or lack of access to information in Taiwan about gender gap.Carel3DS (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing countries on 2020 report

There are quite a few countries missing in the article for 2020, that are included in the 2020 report. I only checked some of the worst-performing countries but noticed that Iraq, Democratic Republic of Congo and Togo are missing. Likely there are other countries that are missing from the article as well. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jack. Please notice that not every country would ease information related to Global Gender Gap, which is the reason that some countries are not listed in the GGG report. Carel3DS (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)