Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational sex integration

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Occupational_sex_segregation. Any useful information can be merged. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational sex integration

edit
Occupational sex integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another collage which claims to be about sex integration but which in fact is a random assortment of things the creator presumably finds interesting. What useful content there is here is redundant to other articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Marshallsumter (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the article's creator and a substantial contributor,
  • 'a random assortment of things the creator presumably finds interesting' is groundless opinion,
  • WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."
  • The first reliable source Reskin connects 'occupational sex integration' with 'sex wage gap'. A second reliable source Hartmann connects 'patriarchy' with 'workplace'. Subsequent reliable sources connect 'corporate patriarchy' with 'sex integration' - Simpson, 'joint trades' - Hartman, 'corrections' - Etheridge, 'military patriarchy' - Bickford. These reliable sources connect 'sex integration' by women into the labor force with 'religion' - Psacharopoulos, 'priests' - Foss, Sullins, Chaves, Fathi, and Preston. This by Wikipedia definition is NOT synthesis.
  • 'redundant to other articles' Of the reliable authorities referenced in this article (nineteen of them by name, here is a breakdown of sex integration articles where their contributions are also present by reference number in this article, 'name', and article abbreviation:

1. Reskin '88, none,

3. Anker '97, Occupational sex segregation (OSS),

4. Hartmann '76, none,

5. Simpson '00, none,

6. Haj '92, none,

7. Etheridge '84, OSS,

8. Ben-Ari '07, none,

10. Bickford '97, none,

14. Psacharopoulos '91, none,

15. Foss '84, none,

16. Sullins '00, none,

17. Chaves '93, none,

18. Chaves '99, none,

19. Fathi '97, none,

20. Hoodfar '04, none,

21. Preston '04, none,

22. Brinton '93, none,

23. Ravanera '02, none, and

27. Svedberg '09, none.

Sex integration articles having none of these are Sex integration and homosexuality and Sex integration. The authors are referenced in the other articles because the other article also addresses an issue that accompanies or is associated with that article. Here is a breakdown of author overlap:

  1. OSS uses 27 authors of which only two are used here. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. . DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete with "Occupational Sex Segregation". These are the guidelines for Merging. The content for both articles is far more similar then dissimilar in subject matter. As stated above there does seem to be some POV represented in the article that may represent an inequality for some readers of the Wiki.. These are the POV guidelines as well as some information regarding reliability [[1]] for your review.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Occupational sex segregation. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and redirect to Occupational sex segregation. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As User:Roscelese has pointed out 'Sex integration' and 'Sex segregation' are opposites. The scholars who write the articles cited in the article know that. There are forces that work for one but not the other. An effort sometime back to combine these two met with apathy, probably for that very reason. While a title such as 'Gender and occupation' or 'Sex and occupation' might be reasonable, these fall short of the mark. 'Patriarchy' is an example of an apparent force for segregation. Yet today many fathers fight for gender/sex integration so that their daughters can lead successful, happy, fulfilling lives. So for those considering Merge, I suggest you reconsider. Such a merge would probably have two parts: 'gender integration' and 'gender segregation'. Just a suggestion. Marshallsumter (talk)
    • Forces that work toward one work against the other. The opposites are connected at the hip. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A simple-minded approach that is short-sighted and often wrong. There may be a connection, there may not. But, the forces at work and the number of occupations in the spectrum from almost purely segregated such as Roman Catholic priest or gestation of humans (yes, it is theoretically possible for a male to carry a fetus to term, though volunteers are coming up short) where women, so far, are paid to do it, to almost completely integrated makes such a merge well beyond the usual maximum article length of ~ 100 kb. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With an earlier effort to merge Sex segregation with Sex integration, editors seeing the phrase sex integration in the sex segregation article felt that the two articles should be merged; however, when replaced with the opposite phrase and appropriate adjectives felt the articles should be separate. Sex segregation is an extreme that is the starting point to define sex integration. Sex segregation can be a separate article because it need only focus on this extreme where ever or when ever found. The term sex integration starts to have meaning when one member of the opposite sex, or other gender, is present. Another often used term is desegregation. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupational_sex_integration&oldid=1069209515"