On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC <carolmoor...@verizon.net>wrote:
> > If the material is WP:Undue it can be reduced. > > If there is evidence that this was a case of males freaking at female > orders, and there's WP:RS evidence of that, include it. If she was in fact > abusive, we should not be trying to cover that up. > > Meanwhile an NPOV question mark tag on the article would be appropriate. > > CM > > > There's no evidence of "males freaking at female orders", but then there wouldn't be, because the review board and her superiors are primarily male (as were the majority of her colleagues and subordinates). So that might be part of it, but there's no real way to establish that or include it in the article. Given the sources and context, it did seem that the dismissal was getting undue weight, so I reduced the coverage and I think the article is in OK shape. ~Nathan
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
