<blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<i>It would not have to be a gender related issue for this to occur.</i><br clear="all"></blockquote><br>Fred is right in that point. I'm not a gender editor (my articles almost never have problems with gender issues), however, the topic is one where you can find the most biased people on earth: Religion.<br>
<br>And I would say you case was not the worst one, the worst case i can imagine (and already happened with me several times) is to remove biased info (or include NPOV info) in an article about a religion / god / dogma who is watched by some believer of the same god / religion. ;) <br>
_____<br><font style="font-family:georgia,serif" size="2"><i>Béria Lima</i></font><br><a href="http://wikimedia.pt" target="_blank">Wikimedia Portugal</a><br>
(351) 963 953 042<br>
<br><i style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)">Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de
ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o
que estamos a fazer.</i><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 October 2011 18:54, Fred Bauder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fredbaud@fairpoint.net">fredbaud@fairpoint.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> I've never particularly felt the "boys club" atmosphere on Wikipedia<br>
> that apparently deters some women. However, I am very angry right now.<br>
> I tried to add [[date rape]] as a "see also" link to the very<br>
> incomplete article [[college dating]]. The relevance seemed obvious to<br>
> me. It was removed by two separate people, and when I took it to the<br>
> talk page, its relevance was questioned, and I was told to "prove it"<br>
> because it was "obvious to whom?" Fine. I've proven it with sourcing,<br>
> adding a small section. I think that needed to happen anyway, but I'm<br>
> infuriated that I could not just add a see also link to it and tell<br>
> the students who are really working on the article that a section<br>
> needed adding. (The people who removed the link are seasoned<br>
> Wikipedians, not members of the class developing the article.) Am I<br>
> crazy?<br>
><br>
> LadyofShalott<br>
<br>
</div>No, that is the usual reaction of biased editors of all persuasions, to<br>
throw their mind out of gear, when obvious conclusions which contradict<br>
their bias are advanced.<br>
<br>
It would not have to be a gender related issue for this to occur.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Fred<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gendergap mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>