Talk:Unisex public toilet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy

There has always been some controversy surrounding GNTs (e.g. "political correctness gone mad"). Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? Lucy (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Who?

"Under this model, University of Bradford Union became the first university student union in the United Kingdom to institute gender neutral toilets in 2008 after campaigning by the student union's welfare officer, Sophia Coles-Riley"

Why do we need to know this young woman's name? Is not her designation as the student union welfare officer sufficient identification for the purpose of the section, i.e. to inform the reader of an event which took place (the reassigning of restroom facilities to that of gender-neutral ones)? From what I can tell she does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people), (this section is especially relevant) so I am removing it until a reason for it's posting can be given. Rpm2005 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Sophia is not a woman - you could have taken the time not to assume as such on such as article!

2. Sophia is a friend of mine and I thought it would amuse them to put their name on Wikipedia, which it did. Obviously it's not encyclopaedic and I am content that it was removed. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw.

Disputing one part.

"In 2008, the University of Bradford Union became the first public body to introduce unisex toilets."

When I worked for the government during the period 2000-2003 there was a unisex toilet on each floor of the building I worked in. This was not a new thing then, they were clearly designed to be 'multipurpose' and had been built at the same time as that building, during the 1980s.

Jacobitten (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going by what the article said. However, just to be safe, I'll remove that part of the sentence. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

They were the first student union to explicitly create gender neutral toilet blocks. Obviously single cubicle toilets have existed since indoor sanitation. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gender neutral ?? How about a neutral point of view?

Usually when I read a Wikipedia article is in an article of information. This is the most biased article I have ever seen on the Wiki. This article is trying to cause these things to happen, not inform us about them. This article was so bad I couldn't figure out how to fix it so I'm commenting here. Please lets either fix this thing or eliminate it and start over. These editor can take their political biases elsewhere on the web. Not on an informative web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.223.26 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 98.192.32.29 (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The scope of the article was originally neutral, but the expansion of the transgender topic/news events shifted the point of view to a biased POV. I've reverted the article to a previous stable version without all the bias. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Gender-neutral toilet → Unisex toilet – Back in 2008, Dev920 "moved Unisex bathroom to Gender neutral toilet" based on his belief that "the previous name is americo-centric," and that "global usage is gender neutral toilet." However, per WP:COMMONNAME, "unisex toilet" is used more commonly than "gender-neutral toilet" with 66,700 for unisex and 54,100 for gender-neutral. Google Scholar returns "unisex+toilet" 180 hits for unisex toilet and "gender-neutral+toilet" 9 hits for gender-neutral. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment wouldn't it be "toilet facilities" instead of "toilet"? As the toilet itself is already gender-neutral/unisex. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Toilet is actually synonymous with bathroom, so it doesn't matter. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

toilet is also a generally porcelain fixture, and there are designs for male and female toilets on the market, while the main article for this article is public toilet, so unisex public toilet or gender-neutral public toilet would make more sense, and cause less confusion, since this isn't about the porcelain throne itself (which is normally unisex). -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, but do we wait until after the move is completed, or can I cancel the move process since it is no longer controversial and just move this to the empty page? So far, it seems there is a consensus to use "unisex" in the title. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

We can let this run out to determine whether it is "unisex" or "gender-neutral", and then move it again later through a new requested move (say the day after) or a bold move. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No evidence that gender-neutral is used more globally than unisex. Zarcadia (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, agree with analysis about common name per sources. — Cirt (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

International English?

Can we find another title for this article? At the moment it is written in exclusively American English, which is not appropriate for an international encyclopædia. Outside the USA, the word "bathroom" means a room where you go to have a bath. However, this article is obviously about the room you go to use the toilet facilities. At home, there may be a single room for both purposes - but in an office (such as the one featured in Ally McBeal), employees have nowhere to actually take a bath. Therefore, outside North America, it is not a "bathroom". Any suggestions for an international alternative? EuroSong ^talk 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They're traditionally known as gender neutral toilets. I will rename the article now. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gender-neutral toilet is a terrible name, neutral makes it appear only for use by eunucjs, Gender-free toilet is even worse, to me, it appears no male or female can use it, again. Maybe unisex is preferable, at least from a literal point.

What about restroom or washroom? Using the term toilet is as exclusive as bathroom, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.242.20 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Americans don't have toilets? Because we certainly don't have restrooms. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 03:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have toilets, they're what we sit on and shit into when we're inside our bathrooms. Rpm2005 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a general guideline for this is in order. thusly, the device into which waste is deposited should be called the toilet, and the facility(s) in which it is used should be called the lavitory(ies).Johnsmithminecraft (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the lavatory was the sink where you washed your hands after using the toilet. 66.234.219.175 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole basis of the article is ridiculous

Why is this article written like it's a homosexual issue? Unisex toilets are just a disgusting, unhygienic fad amongst cheapskate developers who are trying to cut costs at everyone else's expense. I can't believe people have hijacked what could have been a sensible article to fill it with dubious, tangential information about drag queens trying to sneak into the wrong bathrooms. Writing about unisex toilets as if they're primarily a homosexual issue is akin to saying that coal power plants are built just to produce fly ash. (Huey45 (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Now I'm not part of the LGBT community so bare with me here but imagine a transgendered man needs to piss...if he goes into the ladies room and one of the women realizes he's a guy she could freak out and get him arrested yet if he goes into the men's room he could be violently beaten by drunk rednecks while they call him a fag. Now throw all that in the sauce with the very likely possibility of lowered self-esteem and anxiety problems that almost always come hand in hand with having to lie about who you are everyday of your life just to be happy and I'd say it's a pretty big issue. You and I have the luxury of never having to worry about stuff like that so we'll never understand what they have to go through just to get by in a world that mostly hates or is disgusted by them. Rpm2005 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Think of it another way - separate toilets are actually somewhat demeaning towards men, because it implies that they are sexual predators who need to be kept away from women in a bathroom situation. But mainly what Rpm said. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why unhygienic? That seems a bizarre idea. In the building I worked in with unisex toilets, they were cleaner than the 'normal' style mens toilets. (I don't know about the womens toilets, but the cleaners I've spoken to who worked in other buildings told me that womens toilets are generally dirtier than the mens.) Jacobitten (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender neutral toilets are a human rights issue that are crucial aspects of everyday life for LGBT people (partially those who are transgender, androgynous, intersex, genderqueer, etc), disabled people, and families with young children. There is no reason to assume that a gender neutral toilet is less hygienic than a gender specific toilet. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

Wait, so unisex toilets are always single-user? Then I don't know what's the big deal. OK, I live in Germany and have never been to the US so that may explain it. Maybe it's a Europe vs. US thing, but here single-user toilets are always unisex, at least I've never seen a gendered one, and (apart from portable toilets, the infamous DIXI toilets, or those at highways) they're regularly much cleaner than (multi-user) public men's toilets, which tend to be disgusting especially at railway stations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2014)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2014)

If 26 inline citations are sufficient, please remove the tag above. If not sufficient, please add additional references.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If any specific sentence is disputed, add a [citation needed] or [better source needed] tag instead. Almost everything seems properly sourced right now. ~Mable (chat) 07:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unisex public toilet. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150113153709/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=e96c4e8a-2b06-4b66-95f4-182324e1ca39&k=40658 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=e96c4e8a-2b06-4b66-95f4-182324e1ca39&k=40658
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.danfo.co.uk/2013/02/18/unisex-or-gender-neutral-toilets-the-facts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What is this article even about?

Ostenstibly it's about unisex toilets, but in practice it seems to either be an advocacy piece for creating them for trans people, or about the separate issue of bathroom bills. Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree this article needs further work. I think we should merge it together with Sex segregation in public restrooms and work on the quality of it then. EMsmile (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The History section of the article

The History section of the article is conflating segregation based on sex in relation to using a toilet with racial segregation. The article is supposed to be about unisex toilets and the rational for having unisex toilets. Leveni (talk) 1:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

yes, the article needs a lot of work (see also my merger proposal). Are you in a position to help improve this article, User:Leveni? EMsmile (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Morality issue, needs references then re-insert in the right place

I've cut this out from the article for now. It can go back in once it has references. Also I would not put it under "disadvantages" as it is not an objective disadvantage but rather a subjective one. The way it is written seems anyway that the authors would not agree that it is a disadvantage:

" === Threat to public morality === The unisex toilets are met with opposition from the conservative side. The sharing of toilets is presented as immoral and against prevailing habits. The debate is sometimes controversial and bears the hallmarks of [[moral panic]], especially in the USA. Aspects of cultural identity and the feared change in values play into the controversy: with the abolition of gender segregation in public toilets, a decay of morals and public order is called for. Similar discursive patterns are used as in the argument against the abolition of racial segregation in the USA in the 1950s. A warning is issued against the looming threats: violence and sexual assaults would increase. An often cited scenario is the accusation that transvestites are already abusing small children in toilets." EMsmile (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't finished. But I agree: it's not realy a disantvantage.--Lamilli (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Lamilli you seem to have the habit of not explaining your edits, i.e. you are not putting an explanation into the edit summary. You do know about the importance about the edit summaries each time you save an edit, don't you? I would really appreciate if you could start doing it, given that you are making broad and sweeping changes. If you don't know what I mean with "edit summary", I can explain. It would make collaboration on this article easier and more fun! EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive this talkpage

I suggest archiving this page, so we have a fresh talkpage where all the necessary issues can be discussed without having to scroll through years of old comments. (And I further suggest holding off on making other substantive comments, until someone agrees (and archives this page) or disagrees with a cogent reason.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of archiving. I think it always helps to see previous discussions and this talk page is not overly long yet. But if you really feel it should be archived, go ahead, I won't fight it. ;-) EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that huge at this point, but agree with EMsmile. Fwiw, you don't have to scroll anymore; I added a skip box at the #top. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. I may suggest this again in a few weeks or months. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Terminology: unisex v gender-neutral v other options

We need to get our terminology straight - pun intended. Two questions to get us started:

1. What is the current best practice or most used terms in the reliable sources about this topic? From the perspectives of design and sanitation and engineering and town planning etc, as well as transgender activists (people coming at the article from a "Bathroom bill" perspective).

AND

2. What are the relevant Wikipedia policies for alternative names?

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Terminology: the [several] types

If, as has been suggested above, this article should cover both types, we need to know what to call them. Or maybe there are more than two types to cover. As in the section immediately before this one, what are the terms currently used by the experts?

1. The single facility. Crucially, it isn't a single-user facility, as a parent can take a child, a disabled person can take an attendant, or (for the encyclopedic coverage of absolutely everything) two people can take each other: a ground-level mile high club.

2. The re-labelling of existing multi-cubicle public toilets, with no real change. For example at the Barbican Centre [1].

3. The design, from scratch, of multi-user facilities open to all.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Great stuff, I like your structured approach! I am not sure if there are separate names for those three types but I'll send off some e-mails and alert people to this talk page. Maybe we can get more inputs from experts which would be great. EMsmile (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Merging into unisex public toilet article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal Please do not modify it. The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {Sex segregation in public toilets} into this talk page's article was:

Completed per Request.
— — — — —

I suggest to merge this article and the one on unisex public toilet as there is so much overlap.EMsmile (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:BurritoBazooka, I saw your edits on unisex public toilet, what do you think of my merger proposal? Do you also find that the two articles have a heap of overlap and should be merged? EMsmile (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, strongly. But I wonder if there could be a better general title for the new article, to describe both sex-segregated and gender-neutral toilets simultaneously. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 14:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It should be a commonly known word though that people use in searches on Wikipedia. Perhaps something on social inclusion or toilet rights, human rights etc. Perhaps this website can give us inspiration: http://www.phlush.org/2016/08/31/social-inclusion-toilet-rights-and-legal-protection-for-transgender-americans/ User:Cryacrem, any suggestions from your end? EMsmile (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. Frankly both articles are a mess, and merging them will force a re-write and a re-think. I know the care that EMsmile takes with sanitation-related articles, so I believe that a new merged article will be much stronger than either is now. Suggestion: if you want more eyes on this merger proposal, post a note on project talkpages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies or of course the sanitation equivalent. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've carried out the merger now. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Design aspects

I am putting here some information from PHLUSH (see my notes above). It might help as we develop this article further: Some thoughts:

• At PHLUSH we've stopped using the rather outdated term Unisex, which refers more to things (clothing, architecture, etc) than people and is found objectionable by folks in the LGBTQ community.  Portland public toilets are simply signed “All-User Restroom.”  
• In terms of efficiency of user flow, private,direct entry single user stalls are optimal. They are, however, more expensive to construct.  Efficiency of use / user flow should be listed among advantages.  
• Without such a layout, the semi-private space (usually around the sinks)  between individual stalls and areas where the general public circulates remains.  This is the area where where non binary folks are made uncomfortable or beaten up.  It’s where architecture meets human rights.
• More here  Direct Access Family and All-Gender Toilet Rooms and here Design Trends: Inclusion, Privacy, Efficiency, & Convenience
• Many cultures will always lean toward sex-segrated facilities, even those with tolerant attitudes toward the LGBTQ community.

I've now re-arranged the structure and am proposing that we start off with "design aspects" to explain the different types of unisex public toilets. I have moved the more "advocacy" style content towards the end. The "design" section still needs more work. Some drawings there would be good, too. EMsmile (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

While I do think that such a "design" section should be established, I think we should keep the "history" and "background" section on the top to conform with wiki standards.--Lamilli (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia standard to have the history section at the top. See Manual of Style for WikiProject Medicine and for WikiProject Sanitation. Both have the history section at the end. See here and here. Do you agree that this article is primarily about a sanitation topic? It seems you see it more as a gender & transgender and social topic. By starting out with the design section we would appeal to those readers who want to know what unisex public toilets ARE before reading about the controversies around them. EMsmile (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok.--Lamilli (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed - not a neutral point of view

I've read over the article again and added the "globalize" tag (as per discussion above). I was also close to adding an "opinionated" tag. This is something that has been brought up on this talk page before (scroll up), although perhaps some of those concerns have been addressed by now. Either way, there are still a lot of statements here that need a citation; others have a citation but it goes to a Youtube video or a German news page (is it OK to use German news pages as references for statements that are meant to apply globally, i.e. not clearly marked to be just about a German case?). Also the choice of quotes is clearly biased as well. I actually find that quotes are often used to push certain opinions, rather than facts (especially if the quote comes from a "transgender activist" whose job it is to lobby). If we have to have quotes can they rather be from highly reputable sources, e.g. UNICEF, WHO rather than from people who are doing advocacy work? Isn't that rather primary research rather than reporting from secondary sources? I think this article can become very good and important but let's keep it neutral, just describing what unisex toilets are, what the issues are, rather than in every second paragraph condemning sex-segregated public toilets as a bad thing. There are surely reliable sources for both points of view and they need to be brought out in a balanced, non hyped-up up fashion. This might be very difficult if we keep focusing this article on the United States where this is such a heated, political issue right now. Once we broaden it to also include developing countries, we'll probably find a range of other literature that can be used as reliable sources (regarding why sex-separated toilets also have benefits). I am sorry that I write all this criticism here, rather than getting to work on the article! If I have time I'll get to work on it as well but I currently have a number of other Wikipedia articles on my to-do list. - Hopefully these comments are helpful regardless. EMsmile (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I've just had a look at the article for the first time since just after the merger and it has such fundamental troubling issues that I can't perform my usual wikignoming until certain matters are ironed out, preferably here. For example, I see no resolution to the basic question I raised above: is this article about single-item facilities (as the image of the train toilet would suggest)? As far as I know, there are zero social questions (anxiety, lobbying, legislation) about toilets of that sort, on planes or at home or in open-to-the-public buildings so tiny that they only have one small toilet (room) (I am thinking of certain ancient churches and historic house museums). There may well be engineering questions, such that train toilet and airplane toilet merit their own articles, while historic house museum toilet does not. Or is this article about multiple-cubicle facilities, where men, women, and children queue together? If we can't sort that out, we can't build a coherent article.

And yes, sources need to be of academic standard wherever possible, not journalistic. Top-level is UN data and research. E.g. implications of sex segregated toilets on girls' education, worldwide.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Addition: this confusion is inherent in the lead. "Unisex public toilets also benefit people with disabilities, the elderly and anyone who needs the help of someone of another gender." The standard multiple-cubicle facility does no such thing. Whatever the queuing space, the cubicles are designed for one person. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Carbon Caryatid completely. My suggestion is that the article should be about BOTH those two types and this should come out clearly in the lead and in the structure of the article. That means we have to reduce the emphasis on the transgender issues as it currently dominates the article a lot. We probably need a better structure (let's look at the table of contents). Or would a solution be to create a spin-off article which we call "Unisex public toilets in the United States"? I think we should put more emphasis on design aspects and we could utilise publications by PHLUSH. They have sent me some material by e-mail which I will copy in a new section below. I am really sorry that I have not yet had the time to build this content in myself but I hope by copying it here, it will help others to do so (or I might get around to it eventually). I have also asked the people at PHLUSH if they would like to help. EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about the lead for now. Let's focus on getting the article good: a strong focus and structure, academic refs, clear prose. Only then can the lead be re-written to summarise the main text.

As for creating spin-off articles, yes that is a possibility. There already is Bathroom bill, so abiding by the Wikipedia principle that no genuinely encyclopedic information should be lost to the project, items that don't really fit here, could be moved to there, in principle. Another idea is something along the lines of Timeline of women's suffrage. Timeline of bathroom bills? I'm joking about that actual title, but serious about the idea, in theory. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in an ideal world, the lead is written at the end, when the article is complete. Here though we are dealing with a living document. We have readers who look at this article already now. The lead is super important and sets the tone for the rest of the article. If the lead focuses immediately on the sex discrimination thing then that sets the tone. I think it is important to first start with the better known aspects, e.g. toilet rooms for people with disabilities and people with young children. Also there is no need to add references in the lead. The lead should only have content that is from the main article where the references are included with the relevant sentences. Having only those gender-focused references in the lead would again distort the overall picture so I think it's better if we can agree to have no references in the lead (in line with Wikipedia standards). EMsmile (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Bathroom bill, thanks for pointing that out. I have now created links in both directions. Interesting that in the US the term "public toilet" seems to be so rare that the entire article on bathroom bill never mentioned the word even once! Bathroom bill is of course again completely US focused (suggest name change of the article to "Bathroom bill in the United States"?). I agree we could see where there is content in this article that is better off moved to the other article - perhaps that part about legislation in the US? EMsmile (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to catch up on some of the arguments here. Bathroom bill is - as a name for the phenomenon - a nice piece of activist alliteration (like potty parity); I suppose if the movement had first surfaced in the UK, it might have been named "loo law". The BB article is almost entirely US, but it does have a little bit on Canada. The focus of the article is "Bathroom bills affect access to sex-segregated public facilities for an individual based on a determination of their sex as defined in some specific way—such as their sex as assigned at birth". So it is about legal access, not any modifications in design. If there are other such laws around the world, then by all means add them to Bathroom bill, and move most of the existing content out to Bathroom bills in the United States. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Terminology: hardware

Which terms would you prefer: cubicles vs. stalls (for the separation between toilets), privacy walls vs. screens (for the separation between urinals)?--Lamilli (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think privacy walls and screens could both be used here and there so that people get used to both terms. I would also suggest to use cubicles and stalls both (E.g. I made it "cubicles or stalls") in case this makes it clearer for people. However, I wonder if the term "cubicle" is the right term when the walls go all the way from ceiling to ground? For me that is more like a little "room" whereas cubicle is something without full walls, or? By the way, do we have any information on what is safer? I just wonder if a fully enclosed room has the risk that an attacker could commit a crime and nobody would hear it (after locking the victim in with them), whereas the walls that don't go to the ground could help other people to hear if a person is in trouble? I know we are not meant to discuss such a "content" question here on the talk page but I just wonder if there are publications out there that describe this aspect. If yes, we could include it also in the text as an issue. EMsmile (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A wall is more substantial than a screen. "Cubicle" and "stall" may be interchangeable, but I think the former is more widely used. Neither says anything about the height of the walls: when I walk into a multi-user facility, I don't think, "Oh, lots of little rooms," but "oh, three cubicles, I wonder how long I'll have to wait". #anecdata #idiolect #notRS As for safety, yes absolutely we need data to add to the article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanitation issue

In the subsection "Better use of available space", this strikes me as an odd statement, and is unsourced (in a paragraph in which practically every other claim is sourced): for women/girls, as opposed to men/boys, "sanitation is a far greater issue, often requiring more thorough hand washing". Is this a reference to the fact that women may use toilet facilities for changing menstrual sanitary products – in which case, isn't that already covered by the (sourced) reference to menstruation a couple of sentences on? Or is there some suggestion that urination for women is a messier business than for men, and requires more cleaning up afterwards? – which I'd have thought was a highly debatable assertion. From observation, I'd have said that women often are rather more fastidious than men, and do devote more care and therefore time to hand-washing etc, but that the reasons for that are mostly cultural, not biological. Eric Pode lives (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

No comments. I'm deleting it. Eric Pode lives (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin of Unisex Public Toilets

Good day,

I am Carter. I recently rewrote this piece and added citations to my work in it. Fair to say I was not aware of the need to chat about it. So here we are. My changes were substantial. I will put the different topics that concerned me within different headings. My goal was to correct the article, add balance to the article, and to erase duplication. So I apologize to those who felt I stepped beyond bounds. It truly was not my intent.

I research for a living, recently retired as a professor. I still do research and write. One of the areas in which I do research is LGBT-related history. From time to time, if I have something that I think is of importance, I file a brief mentioning that research to the court. I pay for that brief myself-out of my own pocket. I don't collaborate with others on its content. It's all on me. My purpose is to ensure that the court has a clear view of the facts based on scholarship in the field. And politically, I have been an independent for almost a decade.

I just finished an article on how bathrooms became separated by sex. It directly addresses the work of Kogan and Cavanagh (and was intended to do so). It is called "Sexism in the Bathroom Debates: How Bathrooms Really Became Separated By Sex." You can find it on the Social Science Research network here. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311184 You have to get an account but it is free. You will find other scholarship there as well. . The cite records how many hits are there so that people who are seeking tenure and promotion can get advancement. I am retired.I cannot control that feature and it had many hits prior to my adding it.

I rewrote that "origin" section of the piece accordingly. I invite your review. I had not finished the citations when the conflict issue was called to my attention. I am not sure now whether I should proceed or not proceed to finish it at this point. I tried to set the matter up as a controversy, even though my own view is that Kogan is mistaken. I tried to be balanced in the piece.

I can understand how people would think with such a widely circulated theory apparently embraced by the press, how can it be wrong? I am not the first raise questions on this issue. I see that the writers of this section, ignored those prior articles as well. Perhaps they did they not know about them? My article is much longer and well documented. Wikipedia should not ignore this controversy and allow biased content to be circulated. I see this page has been used for teaching. It needs to be accurate. I really don't care who edits it to make it balanced as long as it fairly describes the controversy and does not offer the view that Kogan and Cavanaugh are the final word as it does now.

All best,

Olliemae (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am informed by brass that there is no flat rule against citing one' own work. The rule is disclosure. So I have done that. Anyone reading the work can see that it must be cited.

I am going to go on with minor edits to clean up typos in the piece, clarify and add pincites. I do not think these changes are controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliemae (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Vocabulary: "Colored"

While some in other jurisdictions may object to the word "black" and prefer the word "colored," when speaking of U.S. history it is unwise to use the word "colored." Virtually no one in the US uses it anymore. The word was prominently used during Jim Crow and segregation eras. Americans use today "black" or "African American." However, it is appropriate if the word is being quoted or if a person expresses a desire to be called "colored." And it is appropriate if you are speaking of a jurisdiction in which significant numbers of persons still use that term. I altered it in this article in the discussion of "Jim Crow." Olliemae (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliemae (talk • 2019 (UTC)

Conflicts: Citing Advocacy Groups

Advocacy groups are not nonpartisan. I suggest they be identified as advocacy groups when one cites to or discusses them. This is really important to avoid bias. Their facts may be reliable--but their perspective is not unbiased. Moreover, there is a need to search for different viewpoints whenever one cites such a group. There are other groups that are not clearly advocacy groups, but which still present partisan information. I simply would suggest that to protect the integrity of the work, one should always check to see if a group with a comparable standing or a reliable source has made opposing claims.

Moreover, I believe that persons associated with such groups have a conflict of interest when writing text about them. If you are a member or have done work with or for them in the past you should disclose. That way others can serve as a helpful check. And if the source of your information has that bias that too, the bias of your source should be disclosed. This is done, I believe, by identifying it in a text as an advocacy group.

This piece contains a great many references to advocacy groups and not all indicate consistently that their facts may be partisan or, alternatively, cite alternative views.

I see that in dealing with opposing views they don't seem to like, editors try to minimize the views. The earlier version of this article limited concern about bathrooms to "conservatives" and cited really far right material. While the far right has expressed these notions, there are others who are not fairly lumped in with them. Such characterizations should not be placed in an article as if they are objective truth. Moreover, the size of a group is not a testament to whether or not they have valid points. There are many examples where majorities have oppressed minorities, including in the experiences some editors value.

Citing advocacy groups and linking to their sites could be a way to advertise for them (especially when no one cites opposing views). I think citing them is fine, but I also think that the types of citations should be controlled. Olliemae (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems also to be an attempt to distinguish some advocacy groups from others by saying they are "volunteer." This could be said of a number of groups and does not distinguish partisanship within groups. Indeed, many advocacy groups have a core group of paid persons and then also have volunteers. In external links, I would suggest a separate section dividing advocacy groups from sources of an informational nature (e.g, where unisex bathrooms are). The former group of sources should be balanced or it should be omitted. The latter group of sources should be information that is uniquely helpful and distinctive. Otherwise we could link all day. And citing to a public company seems very much in error. One is simply giving them business. Olliemae (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Olliemae (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bias

I noticed that someone deleted the reference to Woman's Place UK. That left only one group advocating that unisex bathrooms might not be as safe as suggested in the "Protest" section. There was no reason to delete that reference so I put it back in. Let's talk if you feel strongly and explain to why a nonbiased article should ignore that group. Woman's Place UK is especially important to mention because it been the group leading that issue in the UK and because its meetings have repeatedly been shut down. In some cases venues have cancelled their bookings out of safety concerns. They hold discussions on the issues. That shows you the power of speech, on both sides. Wikipedia should not be shutting down discussion.

I also noticed that, at the end, in the references section the link to that group and Resisters was taken out. I previously stated that I had no problem with that change and recommended it if all advocacy group links were taken out at the end. Also the link to the private corporation has been removed. I think those are good changes. But a few of the links that have been added have the tone of advocacy even though they are not advocacy groups. I think the Canada links have that tone. If you are going for that tone, I think it has to be balanced. I did not look to see if the HRC recommendations were still in the piece. I would cut those as well unless one balances the discussion, which can be done. An earlier version of this article suggested that only far right conservatives are against unisex bathrooms. That is advocacy. It is also not true.

Finally, I made a small change to the reference of why menstrual hygiene products are in bathrooms. The sentence referred to women and "older" girls. I think girls begin menstruating around 10 or 11. I don't think of that as "older," some as early as 9. I think of teenagers (14 etc) as "older." So I thought that would be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliemae (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Olliemae (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Change the title of this article?

I am starting a discussion here whether the title of this article should be changed. Here is a comment from one colleague: At PHLUSH we've stopped using the rather outdated term Unisex, which refers more to things (clothing, architecture, etc) than people and is found objectionable by folks in the LGBTQ community.  Portland public toilets are simply signed “All-User Restroom.”   Another colleague wrote to me "the term ‘unisex’ is not necessarily the best, it certainly isn’t one I’ve heard much recently in the UK/US context, and equally it was not used in the Waterlines paper I mentioned before (see here). I’m not sure which term is most understandable for those in developing countries. Other terms include: ‘gender-inclusive’, ‘gender-neutral’ and then you have extra options like ‘third-gender’ specific cubicles which fall out of this bracket. " - I have no opinion on this yet but we need to have this discussion, I think. Another consideration is: what term are laypersons most likely to put into the search field? We can have many redirects from alternative names of course. EMsmile (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for soliciting these comments, particularly when your friendly experts point to public and reliable sources. I was told recently not to refer to "disabled toilets" as that sounds as if the facility is not functioning properly; instead the term now is "accessible toilets", meaning wheelchair-accessible. (By the way, we don't have an article on Changing Places (campaign), the UK campaign since "2006 on behalf of the over 1/4 of a million people who cannot use standard accessible toilets" [2]. Something to keep an eye on.)

Likewise, I always understood "unisex toilet" to refer to the architecture, not the user, so I don't see a problem with it. The phrase doesn't mean "only to be used by unisex persons". (I don't know anyone - however genderqueer or nonbinary -who says "I am unisex", though I'm sure all things are possible and there probably is one person somewhere.) Until there's a very good reason to use something else, I'm happy sticking with "Unisex public toilet". Yes, let's have as many redirects as we can think of. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

PS for ease of reference, I'll link to Wikipedia:Article titles and - in case of controversy - Wikipedia:Requested moves. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that this change to "toilet" was perhaps not a wise idea. If this article is in American English, the word bathroom should have remained even if in parenthesis following "toilet" The notion of the freestanding toilet is also historically misleading. People often used rivers to bathe AND to use the toilet. A chamber pot which was an early toilet might be in the same room as a sink or a dressing area. Isolating "toilet" makes it appear as if we have always had toilet and sink only as we have them today. It also blurs the privacy and safety issues that often surround debates over this topic. I have no objection alone to toilet but suggest that "(Bathrooms)" be added back in parenthesis after that word. Then, when someone searches they can find it. Alternatively there should be a version of this article with American English and an identical one with international English with links between them. Have not made the change yet. Want to know what folks think. Olliemae (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I started to edit the above and realized I should make a separate comment. To continue, in the US the "toilet" usually refers to the actual thing while the "bathroom" would be that and a sink or that and a sink and bathtub or shower. In the U.S. a "toilet" or "toilette" referred to cosmetic preparation and dress (including bathing and makeup application). Another possibility is to say toilet here if people want that, but to create a separate bathroom page that links to this. But let's be clear that some decision has to be made as to how this gets translated both so people can find the page when looking for it and so that it says the same thing to everyone. Olliemae (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We are trying to create articles here that are understood across the board by anyone looking for information in English, not just Americans. The spelling is American but the wording is meant to be "universal". Hence we decided a while ago to have bathroom defined as it is now in its own article, not to use it as a euphemism for the toilet room. There is also an article on toilet (room) by the way. As to people finding what they're looking for, this is quite easy to accomplish by creating redirects. E.g. we can create a redirect from "unisex public bathroom" to here if you think it's needed? If have just now added that redirect. EMsmile (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation style

I will be making some edits to restore a consistent citation style to the article using named references for reuse of existing sources. The original style of this article was standard footnotes with use of named refs; see for example rev 876303267 from 1 January, before Olliemae's round of changes, consistent with rev. 880869043 after her edits, with eleven named refs on the Carter article. This is the right way to do it here for consistency, so I'll be changing many of the references in this recent edit to match the style in this article. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot. Oh I only saw this now. I think I have already made the corrections that you said we need to make. Saved you some time. :-) I agree with you.EMsmile (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

EMsmile, indeed, that's exactly what I was talking about, thanks so much for taking care of that. Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rollback

The expanded article is not encyclopedic, is not in accord with Wikipedia's style, and suffers from massive COI editing. At this point, it would be far more difficult to selectively delete what is not right with the article, than it would be to go back to a previous point in time, and simply readd what has been added since then that is worthwhile and in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Therefore, I am proposing a rollback to revision 876303267 of 14:45, January 1, 2019 , when the article was 84kb, which is a point n time before the expansion was made (currently 111kb). This will eliminate all the 23 occurrences of "X argues that..., while Y argues that...", as well as remove all of the problematic COI material. Previous discussion on this page highlight some of the problems.

Note: a rollback does not remove information forever, and nothing removed is lost to Wikipedia. All the information is still there, preserved in the history of the article, where anybody can see it and retrieve it. After the rollback, we can find material added since the rollback point that is of value, and re-add it back into the article, as needed. Pinging involved editors @Kind Tennis Fan, Spiderjerky, KevinPR82, EMsmile, Eric Pode lives, and Olliemae: and other recent contributors @Carbon Caryatid and Lamilli:. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mathglot: I see your reasoning but I think a rollback would be too drastic a move. It would also revert a lot of the work that I did after the huge addition of new text - which I thought did improve things a lot. Also I don't think the CoI is all that bad here. Yes, User:Olliemae added a lot of content from her paper or papers, but that's reasonable, given that there is not so much literature about this niche topic. If she can still add the page numbers to the citations then I think it would be a good step forward. I think we should give Olliemae a bit more time to make some of the changes that we have discussed. If not, then I think we should do some cutting and culling and moving to other articles but I would not support a roll-back because I would find that too drastic a change and would undo a lot of good improvements. EMsmile (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, EMsmile, thanks for your comments. I understand your points. The intent isn't to undo addition of good new text, that's just temporary corollary damage from the rollback, and the good edits would be reinstated afterward. The problem I have with the article in its current state, is that it is a result of editing contrary to policy, and cannot be left like this. The question is, how best to fix it? It's not a question of throwing out the good with the bad, it's more a question of, which is easier for editors and takes less time: 1) rolling back and then reinserting the good stuff, or, 2) picking out the not good stuff in the current version, and removing it? I think #1 is much easier than #2.

That's really my only point. I am also not objecting to the inclusion of text and references from the works that Olliemae has written outside of Wikipedia. I merely object to Olliemae being the one to include them. For example, I wouldn't object to *you* being the editor to include Olliemae's writings, or any other editor, but there is a potential conflict of interest here.

My worry in starting with the status quo and saying we're going to improve the article by *removing* stuff that is excessive by Olliemae, is that it basically won't happen; we don't know if whatever remains after a couple of deletes is there because there's consensus that it's good, or because this is a volunteer project, people are busy, and nobody got around to deleting it. That basically gives someone with COI a pass on numerous citations of their own work, and that's not the way it's supposed to be. Much cleaner, and closer to policy, is just to remove everything, and then just put back whatever portion of it are deemed worthy.

An editor with COI is welcome to take part in article improvement, even on the article page, within reason. However, the best way for an editor with COI to proceed is to suggest changes here on the talk page, and then allow other editors to discuss it and make the call about what to include, by consensus. That's the way it's supposed to work.

I want your improvements to stay, and I object to Olliemae's additions for COI-policy reasons. The cleanest, fastest fix that I see, is a rollback followed by reinstating good edits, but I'd like to hear opinions about the rollback proposal from more editors. As far as your own additions, if it makes you feel any differently about how to proceed, I hereby volunteer to put back all of your additions following a rollback. I feel strongly about policy-based considerations concerning COI, and the article simply can't be left this way, imho. (P.S., I agree we need page numbers in any citations, but I don't want anyone to do extra work on that now if it's just going to be deleted, so let's hold off on that until this becomes clear.) Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If it makes you see this any differently, Olliemae has 42 main space edits in 2019, of which 36 are to Unisex public toilet, one in Public toilet, and five in Sex segregation. The changes at "Sex segregation" were an unsourced addition adding a wikilink to "Unisex public toilet". The change at "Public toilet" was the same. Since 2014, she has no other mainspace edits. This *still* doesn't mean that the edits cannot be useful and good ones, only that this editor shouldn't be the one making the call. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You've asked for additional opinions, so I will throw in my twopenny-halfpenny worth. (From my use of that term, you will deduce that I'm British. For the record, I will add that I have a general interest in this topic, have this article on my watchlist, and have made a handful of edits to it over the past couple of years; but I'm certainly no expert in the subject; nor have I been a regular enough contributor to feel I have a personal stake in preserving any particular form of the text.) I do accept the arguments on both sides, but in general I'm inclined to agree with EMsmile, that a rollback would be too drastic a measure at this stage. Wikipedia discourages conflicts of interest, but it also encourages contributions from those who have claims to expertise in a particular topic: the challenges of striking an appropriate balance between those two policies, and of educating "experts" in the importance of adhering both to a neutral tone and to a suitably encyclopedic style, are discussed at WP:EXPERT (an essay which Olliemae would be well advised to read).

The problem with this article as it stands isn't really one of COI or bias, but that it remains too long and digressive, with too much inclusion of background and peripheral issues, making it just unencyclopedic. Our readers are either (a) people with a casual, passing interest in the topic, who just want something short, sharp and to the point; or (b) people with a more in-depth interest, who want something fuller and more authoritative, who have the time and energy to chase up authoritative sources like academic articles, and who, while not regarding Wikipedia as authoritative, appreciate the pointers towards authoritative sources that Wikipedia can provide. The solution in this case is therefore judicious pruning, with some of the pruned material being discarded entirely and some being moved elsewhere. (The article is also unduly US-centric, but given that this is far more of a politically-sensitive issue in the US than elsewhere, that's probably inevitable: I don't see the emphasis on the US as a major issue.) The ideal person to prune the text would probably be Olliemae herself, but she hasn't shown much inclination to get involved in learning the ropes of encyclopedic writing, or moving towards editorial consensus. I entirely understand and sympathise with Mathglot's point that we're a volunteer project, and if the article is just left to stand it may be a while before anyone gets round to doing the work; but I don't think the present text is so terrible as to justify the radical solution of a rollback. Eric Pode lives (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well this is Ollie Mae. Obviously, I do not favor a rollback, especially given that the version suggested is demonstrably incorrect (and itself biased). I do not concede the difficulties that others argue primarily because the article rambled before and folks seemed unbothered. It is longer now, yes. As for who the readers are, I think the press and student researchers come to Wikipedia quite a lot, whether they should or not. I think they believe that the more information the better. I have looked at some other articles and some are quite detailed. Against that backdrop, the argument that this article is not "encyclopedic" because of detail does not fly with me. Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that bias and conflict of interest are not the key issues here. If neutrality is the concern, a rollback to that edition is clearly not neutral is an odd solution. Given that I do not see the problem identified, I won't be in charge of responding to it. I do think it can be streamlined but I doubt seriously that any edits I would make would satisfy those with concerns. On the issues of name references, I do note that very often when I have tried to insert "some say" and then mention the "some" in the footnote, people have complained that "some" is too indefinite. (I disagree with that view; when a footnote provides information on who "some" is then the reader knows who it is.) Anyway, such a "some" rule virtually requires name dropping in the text. (Eric Pode's comments, I note, are personal, ill-informed, and out of line.)Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It occurs, sometimes, that when we agree with an approach we translate the approach as neutral when in fact it is merely biased, but to our satisfaction. I wonder if that is happening here. As a scholar, neutrality is always a concern for me. My own view is that the Kogan research has to be conceded now to be largely incorrect and that it ignores a wealth of women's history that was available at the time it was written. I did not say that. Instead, I posed the edits as a debate out of respect for the work done on preexisting text, respect for the author, and in recognition that others were likely heavily invested in the preexisting narrative. But it is puzzling to me that concerns about neutrality and form/style in the text did not appear until the article acknowledged that there existed a different perspective than that offered in the rollback version.

On conflicts of interest, it also would be helpful (and I think it required) that any persons involved in "Stalled" or advocacy groups dealing with this question should also make themselves known and reveal their own conflicts. That is the least those who profess a concern with conflicts of interest can do. These are difficult questions, and we should all stake out honest positions. The argument that the rules prohibit someone with direct expertise on the issue from editing a page is both incorrect and a red herring. My obligation is to reveal the conflict; I have done that and indeed have gone beyond the requirements. Quite frankly, no one else could have made the substantive edits I made because no one else would likely have understood the legal and historical issues involved. This is, as someone rightly put it, a niche area. Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Now I note that Mathglot bothered to look up my editing history. In the event that anyone worries that I have some pattern of introducing bias, I want to clear that issue up. I don't. It was pointed out that long ago I made another edit that led to controversy; it was with respect to another issue, 40 Acres and a mule. In that case, the article involved land given to blacks after they were freed from slavery after the US Civil War. Eventually many of those gifts were revoked. The article suggested that the land was given them by an order of General Sherman and that he had no authority to do so. The article was incorrect. The editor was citing a book that failed to mention that Congress had passed a statute that authorized that blacks to receive the 40 acres of land from that abandoned during the Civil War. After a back and forth, the resolution was that I was correct. Another editor, who clearly had some historical expertise, rewrote the entire article to correct it and then thanked me. Of course, later editors have now removed the reference to the statute authorizing the 40 acres, while keeping the reference to the Sherman order, so the bias appears again, just less obviously. I have no idea of these editors' intent. What I do know is that the article is now misleading because it suggests that Sherman did this on his own. Such battles are ongoing where controversial matters of history and politics are concerned. I recently suggested an edit on the impeachment page which claimed that Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives has authority to handle the impeachment of a US president. That claim is simply is not true; there is no standing committee on impeachment. Historically, Congress has delegated its impeachment authority to a committee of its choice. Now, I know this because I am writing an article on the subject. I made my edit comment on the talk page for that article. I believe the article has been edited, for now. But there is another article on impeachment investigations of federal judges that says something similar. It too is incorrect. I don't edit to introduce biases into a piece. Those who attempt to suggest otherwise are peddling their own biases.Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As for issues of form, I care less about those, but I also don't see the need to adhere to form merely for the purpose of form--and I do note that form often determines substance. Perhaps an overview of form in general is needed to be sure that the requirements meet the needs necessary for all articles. Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As for page numbers, yes, I will look at it in the next few days and report the page numbers that should be added. Someone else can then add them.(Of course, one could also have pdf-searched the document to find the pages but I understand that editors may be more comfortable with me doing it. (I note that a document of this length is rather common in US legal journals. It is long because one must document almost every point made.) For those interested in a more accessible version of the article, it is now at the Yale Law & Policy Review website, but it will be there only until the next issue is out. https://ylpr.yale.edu/sexism-bathroom-debates-how-bathrooms-really-became-separated-sex. For that reason, I would not suggest linking to that. Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is another option. Completely drop all historical and political discussion of bathroom sex separation origins and only discuss architectural questions and how unisex toilets may be accomplished (architecturally) without the prior editorializing about how there are no safety issues). I would be amenable to that. Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Olliemae (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, after providing the appropriate page references, very soon I hope, I won't be further involved in editing this page. The group can decide as it decides, without my further input. My concerns have been expressed.Olliemae (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"In the event that anyone worries that I have some pattern of introducing bias, I want to clear that issue up. I don't." Were it but that simple, there would be no need for COIN at all. Mathglot (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot I don't know what you meant with your last sentence? I think the points put forward by Olliemae make sense. Just because someone cites from a published paper that one has authored doesn't make it into a dangerous COI, especially when the authorship is disclosed (like it has been here) and when the topic is not one of massive current public debate (which the historical sex segretation thing for public toilets isn't), don't you think? And @Olliemae, I think it might be a good compromise to move a chunk of that historical content to another article. Somewhere above you had suggested to move it to bathroom bill. I think that could be a viable solution (we would just leave a sort of summary here and then point to bathroom bill for more). What do you all think of that? EMsmile (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what I meant either by that last line either [User:Mathglot|Mathglot]]. LOL. Sorry. I am perfectly fine with the suggestion of excising the origins and debate info and putting it on another page on bathroom bill. As you note Mathglot I suggested that. The key is that this article should become just an article about gender neutral bathrooms, how they can be built, and why they are helpful for some groups. I think that would be really helpful. The minute the page goes off into a discussion about origins, or why unisex is better than sex separation etc. then it invites a debate. And if written like the rollback version, it becomes propaganda. Now as to citing page numbers, I just took a look. My article is around 75 pages long and the page does cite to the discussion that matches the references in most cases. I will check again tomorrow. A bit time compromised today. But another comical fact emerged as I looked. A number of the other references don't have page citations. These include references to the people to whom my work responds, e.g. Kogan, Cavanaugh, Penner etc.). I don't hear anyone complaining about that. So pinpoint cites is a fair concern, but not if it is applied to one author. Oh well, let's get serious here and try to be as objective as possible. As I noted before, I like the move suggestion. My key concern is that these articles should not offer biased content which, previously, they did. At some point, someone has to stand for a balanced presentation in this article, and I really appreciate those who have done so, even if the counterevidence is not to their liking. My view is that if a debate is being discussed either all persons in the debate should be named or none should be named. If a person makes a an important point that is arguably debatable because someone else disagrees, then the point should be attributed to that person by name (and there are several of these points). But if the point is not debatable and is a fact, then a text attribution is not necessary. Using these rules, I found two instances where my name could be struck and we could simply state the fact and then cite to the source. There is one more thing to consider. Many of my original citations cannot be found by the ordinary reader. For example, I cite newspaper articles from the 1800s. So you HAVE to cite to my article and to some extent, rely upon my interpretation, since most readers don't have the access. So I will, make those corrections and if there are page numbers missing, I will fix that but, as I said, on first review, I don't see a lot of that. It may be that I inserted them earlier and don't remember or that someone did the favor for me. If so, thank you. I vehemently oppose the notion of a rollback. It is a decision to go back to a biased article and the person recommending it would then put the burden on everyone to then do the work of updating the article. How unfair and biased is that? So rather than stepping out on that, I vote absolutely not. But I will say that if a rollback is done on this piece, it will be an Exhibit in the argument that Wikipedia is being used to advance one-sided political points of view and cannot be relied upon for factual information. And by the way, you can move the article now without any additions, and I can make changes on the new page. There is no need to wait for me, especially given that so many other citations also lack page numbers and most of mine do have them. (I added my signature to some posts above to ensure it was clear who was speaking.)Olliemae (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@EMsmile: To answer your question: what I meant by quoting Olliemae with a raised eyebrow in that last sentence was exactly as Olliemae took it, to her credit, with a laugh and a mea culpa. Afaic, that's now moot. Nobody has used the word "dangerous" here with respect to COI editing, and I've already acknowledged Olliemae's disclosure, she has been entirely forthcoming and timely in following the procedures about disclosure both on her User talk page, as well as here, so that is likewise not at issue.

I think part of the problem in discussing this, is that we are actually unwittingly addressing two separate topics, a content issue and a possible COI issue, and as long as they remain intertwined, it's hard to make progress on either one. The confusion is largely my own fault, partly in not choosing a better section title, and partly in not being clearer in addressing the issue myself. Having considered your responses, as well as Olliemae's, I see it more clearly now. Accordingly, I will attempt to disentangle the two by opening a separate discussion and describe what I see as the content issue there. And then I'll come back here to respond to the other comments above. Hopefully, this approach will help us move forward more efficiently, and improve the article. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I went into the document again and added page numbers discussed and added one or two supporting citations on edits I had made that had none. I believe I got all of them. I prefer short forms when there are subsequent citations. I looked to see if Wikipedia had a standard short form citation and I could not find one. Thus, I used a short form that made sense in my field; it did not make sense to cite the entire article over and over again. I deleted one paragraph on US law I had myself added as probably being too much in the weeds. I noticed that changes had been made that didn't make sense to me. For example, the heading Emerging Legal Developments had been deleted, but there were still references to it in the text. So I made edits like that as well. I also updated the US legal section (discussed further below). And I made a few minor changes to match American English or to avoid duplication. Olliemae (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Olliemae, your previous style was fine before this change. I'll fix it use a standard, short style. This is off-topic for this discussion, but I've responded in detail at your talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

As for a move to another section, I am happy leaving it right where it is. I proposed a move only as a compromise. I see no problem with keeping it. But if it is to be moved, it occurs to me that the term "bathroom bill" is an advocacy group term. So it is a bit biased and narrow because many people would argue that the bills are not stating new principles as the term suggests. They also vary widely. I don't think people proposing those bills would call them "bathroom bills." And for that reason also, that name would not be one many people would search find the info. Bathroom Sex separation would probably be the place folks would look, I think. So Bathroom Bills/Sex Separation Debates would be better. Since sex separation seems the opposite of unisex, it seems the better choice.Olliemae (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I also have learned in the past few days that the US Supreme Court announced (on April 22) that in October, 2019, it will hear cases on the issue of LGBTQ rights under federal statutes. That is a new and unexpected development because the Court had delayed the cases before (as the article previously stated). I added that information to the page and altered the language surrounding the para accordingly. But I am now exiting from active editing at this point. The article is no longer inaccurate, so that mission is accomplished, but also with the new cases unexpectedly announced last week, it is very likely that my article will play a role in the upcoming cases and that I will want to play a role in calling my scholarship to the Court's attention. In the US, Historians regularly provide historical context for the Courts. Kogan, whose article plays a prominent role in this page, has previously filed a brief in a similar case expressing his views on bathroom history. I did not file one. For my part, whatever I do, I will be paying for it out of my own pocket, writing it myself, writing on my own behalf and not as an agent for anyone, and receiving no compensation for it. So while my conflict did not prohibit me from editing before, now, based on this new info, I personally feel more comfortable not editing this issue further at least until the issue is resolved. Again, this is a new development. I will be occasionally look in on the discussion.Olliemae (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

My question remains about other conflicts of interest, although you may wisely take that discussion elsewhere. Anyone involved in the Stalled group (which, I understand, Kogan helped found) or in other advocacy groups cited in this document and even one teaching a course that offers only one view of the issues should reveal that status, I think. Those are fair lines of inquiry too in a conflicts discussion, I think. Citations to commercial sources should also be discussed.Olliemae (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers!Olliemae (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a quick thanks to Olliemae. I have learned a lot, reading through your text on this talk page. It's such an interesting topic. I am glad you feel a bit better about the article. I think with a little more compressing and tweaking as well as changing some language to make it easier to understand for laypeople (and easier to translate into other languages) we can come up with a version that we are all happy with (and which will of course evolve further in future). Overall I think it is great when topic experts come to the table and edit Wikipedia article despite the fact that there is that small issue of COI (which I think is not an issue here anymore), and despite the fact that the style of writing might differ a bit compared to academic journal articles etc. If this topic is coming back to the limelight of American politics you can be guaranteed that the click rates for the this article will jump up... So it's good to ensure it's a good, factual and balanced article. Thanks a lot for your time and please do keep an eye on things here (even if you don't have time for much futher involvement at this stage).EMsmile (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, a roll-back is no longer needed - see my comments above. I think I have finally sorted this one out fairly well. More tweaks will be needed but I think the big re-think, re-work and the proper integration of the content that had kindly been added by Olliemae has now been completed. EMsmile (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Replace "restroom" and "bathroom" with "public toilet"?

There are currently a mixture of terms used. Based on the fact that this was written initially with a US focus, I see "restroom" or "bathroom" everywhere. I propose to generally replace this with "public toilet" unless it is part of a title e.g. "American Restroom Association" or "American Restroom Legislation". What do you think? EMsmile (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed--Lamilli (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to "unisex" and "gender-neutral" which are interchangably used throughout the article.--Lamilli (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed re public toilet. Different words deserve a different section....Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As an alternative, we could use the term toilet when we refer to the actual "piece of hardware" and restroom when we refer to the whole facility/room.--Lamilli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We can also hyperlink to this article: toilet (room) when referring to the room. I think we can go ahead with replacing restroom and bathroom with public toilet, toilet or toilet (room) and perhaps just leave it occasionally as restroom or bathroom so that American readers feel familiar. I'll make a start with this now. EMsmile (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought the point of toilet (room) is that that article is about the room in a private house. It can be linked to once from this article, but should not be used interchangeably.Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure. The article does not say that it only applies to private houses. I think it's perhaps a fairly generic term? E.g. could also apply to a hotel. EMsmile (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that Toilet (room) does not only cover private houses; I forgot my example above, the tiny historic house museums that have to make do with one loo. But I don't think a hotel is a useful example: when most people think of facilities attached to a bedroom (en suite), they will imagine washing (shower or bath), whereas when they think of facilities in the public areas of a hotel (lobby or restaurant), again we are back to the standard multi-user public toilet. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I added language that deals with this problem. But really if the piece is written in American English, it should have stayed "bathrooms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliemae (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced bathroom with public toilet throughout and will also replace restroom (and washroom) soon as well. Whilst the article uses American English (e.g. z instead of s) it is NOT written just for an American audience. It is written for a global audience and the global audience is better off with the term public toilet (after all, that is also the title of the article) and not the country-specific terms like bathroom on some countries, restroom in another, ladies & gents in yet another. They are actually all just euphemisms to avoid the term toilet... I have replaced "gender neutral" with unisex. We have explained that they are synonyms but need to stick to one over the other for consistency reasons. EMsmile (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger (with Bathroom bill)

I think the Bathroom bill article could be easily integrated here. It can be handled as a subsection Legislation/United States. However, potty parity might be a different matter. It has substantial overlap with our topic here, but still. You can achive potty parity by keeping sex-segregation and just increase facitlities in female restrooms (or reduce those in male ;-). On the other hand, if you have (male only) urinals in an unisex toilet, men have in principle more facilities available. The only advantage would be that women can now use those toilets which are available but unused by men. This is certainly and advantage. But in a strict sense, this is no parity. So I'd say these are separte topics.--Lamilli (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point about "potty parity" (I am still a bit undecided there). About bathroom bill I would do the merger in the other direction: We could cut out of here all the content that concerns legislation in the US and just leave a short paragraph (teaser) and then refer the readers to bathroom bill for more. Bathroom bill really needs a name change in that case to "Bathroom bills in the United States". EMsmile (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A merger proposal needs to follow proper procedure, which this doesn't. However, my preliminary thoughts: The Bathroom bill article is about the legislative attempts for transgender people to use the public toilet they feel comfortable with; in at least one case, the pupil concerned was offered use of a unisex (presumably disabled-accessible) toilet, and declined, saying this singled them out unfairly. There is no question that bathroom bills, as a proxy for transgender rights, have occupied a lot of psycho-political space in the USA over the past few years, and as such deserve their own article. If similar "bathroom bills" or "loo laws" (I just made up that phrase) can be found in other countries, add them to Bathroom bill; at the same time, cut most of Bathroom bill to create Bathrooms bills in the United States. Move material out of Unisex public toilet to whichever of those is most appropriate. Allow Unisex public toilet to summarise (e.g. repeat and adapt the lead of) the relevant articles. Focus Unisex public toilet on the design of the various types, advantages and disadvantages internationally, etc. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Good points. I've just done a bit of work on the structure of bathroom bill which will allow it to accomodate legislation for a range of countries (we could decide later to create bathroom bills in the United States as a stand-alone article). I think it's a good move to focus the unisex toilet article mainly about unisex toilets and their designs, and not get side tracked with all that information about the history of sex segregation. To this end, should we move most of what is currently under history/background to bathroom bill, at least where it relates to legislation? At the moment, the history part mostly talks about the history of sex segregation, not so much about the history of unisex public toilets. However, it is all interwoven so it might not be so easy to delineate it. But we could try?EMsmile (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the history of sex separation isa sidetrack. If it were, folks would not have spent so much time reporting (inaccurate) history and widely disseminating it in the press. I also note that any coverage of so called "bathroom bills" must be fair. You should not be allowed to narrowly characterize the side you disagree with and then rebut a straw man, especially given the wide impact of writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliemae (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think now with the restructured article, the conclusion is NOT to merge this with bathroom bill. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Structuring of the expanded article

I have just come back to this article after being away from it for some months. I see lots has happened in the last month or two which is great to see. However, I have some concerns which I would like to raise here. Some are probably related to the work by Olliemae (I thank you for all your work here, retired professors are in my opinion perfect for editing Wikipedia articles!).

• There is now some overlap between this article an the one on public toilets, i.e. I saw some content that might fit better with public toilets in general than with unisex public toilets in particular. What do you think?
• I would prefer if we could go back to using standard headings, like the ones listed in Manual of Style (sanitation). With standard headings I mean things like Background, History, Design, Maintenance, Society and culture, Costs and so forth. These generic headings help people to find what they are looking for. See here for more information.
• I wonder if the article has become so detailed in some places that a sub-article should be created where some content is moved to? Perhaps there is a chunk of information that only relates to the situation in the U.S.. It might be better to create a dedicated sub-article on "Unisex public toilets in the United States"? The situation seems rather unique and complex there. EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have made some of the structure changes myself now. But that whole section on "Civil rights issues" needs to be carefully assessed: content that talks about public toilets in general ought to be moved to public toilet. EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I just want to agree – in broad terms – with EMsmile's comments. I welcome the informed expansion of the article by Olliemae, but I do feel that it has now become somewhat overlong and rambling, and therefore "unencyclopedic". There is little here that is completely irrelevant or inappropriate, but, in many places, there's just too much detail, and the casual reader is likely to become bored and to move on elsewhere. To quote WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." In my opinion, the article needs some careful and considered pruning – and by "careful and considered", I mean not the wholesale cutting of entire sections, but some tightening of prose, jettisoning of incidental examples and side-issues, and, where appropriate, rearrangement. This is likely to take time (which is why I haven't been eager to leap in and be bold), but I hope that someone, or the community collectively, will take up the challenge and try to cut it back a bit without losing its essence. Eric Pode lives (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree totally with you User:Eric Pode lives. Some of the new sections now read like a scientific literature review with frequent use of "Carter disagrees with this and...", "Carter argues that....". An encyclopedic article would not mention the author name so often but just add the reference to a statement. I agree this would be time consuming to fix. In the first step, I think we should remove a lot of the "Carter"s with just plain statements plus reference. Like "An opposing viewpoint is...". But perhaps another solution would be to create a sub-article for the excessive detail section? For those whop don't know the history, there used to be a Wikipedia article called something like "sex segregation of public toilets" and I merged it into the unisex public toilet article as there was lots of overlap. But now I am wondering if a sub-article would be warranted, like "history of sex segregration of public toilets" and possible also a sub-article called "Unisex public toilet controversies in the United States" which deals specifically with the United States. EMsmile (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the word "Carter" appears 36 times in this article now! Really seems overkill to me (for an encyclopedic article). EMsmile (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good day. This is Carter. (: Thank you for your comments. I address the rambling concern below. While I too like a well-edited, concise article, the most important question to me is whether it provides the info a reader needs. With respect to generic headings, I would say one needs to make sure the existing generic headings would reflect needed content and perform the important task of directing the reader. A heading is designed to give the reader a guidepost as the reader travels through the piece, not merely to match a prexisting format. The new headings were added because I felt that existing headings didn't work well. So one could create new generic headings that fit this work or leave the headings as they are. I tend to think that as one moves deeper into the outline, headings specific to an article are acceptable and even preferred. Perhaps editors with this concern can propose where the info under the headings of concern should go instead? I personally think every Wikipedia article should have a generic "Controversies" heading. LOL. The world is not as simple as we'd like it to be.

As for the multiple references to "Carter," I note that when I first encountered the article "Kogan" was mentioned numerous times. Before I began editing, his work and view dominated the history. If those multiple references to Kogan spurred any concern, please point me to that debate. I didn't see it. My edits were dictated by this preexisting name-referencing structure. Moreover, Kogan's name appears frequently in other related articles, with no reference to opposing views. On the facts, parts of Kogan are clearly wrong, and I thought about just saying that outright in the edits. To be balanced, and because I am an interested person, decided to frame the matter as a debate. That led to mentioning my name since his name was mentioned. Other editors then added my name more frequently in discussing the work. I do not think this was intentionally done to advocate for me or the article. We have here, a highly unusual case in which there are two authors who have written definitive and opposing pieces. You want the article to take the position that Kogan is wrong? Great! Let's go! LOL. But seriously, humor aside, I think it's better to leave readers to figure out who is right by presenting the debate and referencing the pieces. I have no problem with editing out specific names and saying "Researchers disagree ...." and then citing them in the footnotes, but if you edit out one, edit out all. Surely, you can surely see my concern that somehow an article dominated with Kogan's viewpoint with multiple references to him was fine but now, in view that there is a debate, we have to count name references.

Now look folks, we should not beat around the bush, ignore the elephant in the room, la de dah, on this subject. This article was not encyclopedic before. It was biased; it was advocacy. And that bias is everywhere on Wikipedia on articles relating to this and related topics. Indeed, before I wrote my piece numerous persons had challenged Kogan's theory; they just had not traced the history in such detail to prove specific facts. Their views weren't even mentioned in the related Wikipedia articles. That reality was unfortunate and challenged Wikipedia's reliability as an objective source. (This is not the only place where the concerns are raised of course.) Perhaps the effort was not intentional but these pieces became advocacy work masquerading as encyclopedic, factual work. I noticed that a lot of the references cited to the work of those involved in architectural groups that lobby for unisex facilities. And, of course, I am wondering if the editing was done by persons in those groups. (I question anonymous editing rules. I think they are not a wise idea.) These folks can edit, of course; they have important contributions to make. But those editors are interested persons by any sense of the definition. And the proof is in the pudding. So I was amused when folks began to object to me adding information that clearly needed to be added--and that only I was probably in a position to add.

Now to the rambling concern. If by "rambles" you mean the piece has a lot of content that might be separated out, then yes, the piece rambles, but it does that in lots of places, not just in the section on history--and it definitely did that before I made edits. Given the complexities of topic(s) and controversies, it may be that rambling cannot be avoided. However, we should be careful not to dress in the name of "Style" changes that end up denying the public full understanding of the issues or end up presenting a biased view. One cannot always make easy, that which is complicated without a loss of veracity. The only way I know to balance differing viewpoints is to frame the matter as a debate. (And on the facts, I believe that is really a charitable approach because I personally don't think much of what is in the Kogan piece can any longer be defended. But that view also reflects my own bias. I curbed that by dealing with the matter as a debate.)

One further point was made regarding the civil rights history. Here again, the original article was biased and, once again, we should not express our concerns only after a bias is spotted and adjusted. One could write and document much more about that history. I know it well. I have not looked to that section again to see what other edits were made but my edits were correct. Let's not suggest that differences between sex separation and racial separation in bathrooms do not have to be acknowledged in this article, even if one wishes to draw parallels.

Now as for solutions. If I were czar, given the debate over toilet history, I would make a single history of public toilets article and link all the related pieces on toilets/bathrooms to it. I would delete any contrary histories in the other pieces and cross reference, adding what portions of them are not duplicated and are verifiable to the new article. On the one hand, I think that separating out the US story would also not be a bad idea because the legal cases and policies are so evolving quickly. That approach would keep the history separate and including a cross reference. But I do worry that that approach would lead fewer people to an understanding of a world view of the issues. On the other hand, the world view perspective is pretty lacking anyway; perhaps separating them out would lead more people to write about other countries with lesser known histories. Now the downside to that is that ordinary people across the world have fewer platforms from which to speak than do those in the US and Europe. So I worry that advocates will simply write in bias without anyone having the knowledge to manage that. But if I were czar this would be (1) a generic article on the design, vocabulary etc. of toilets (merging other articles with that info). Then I would have related articles on approaches in specific countries/regions on which there is substantial info already on Wikipedia. For example, (2)Public Toilets: Europe (and perhaps separating countries under that); (3)Public Toilets: Canada and (4) Public Toilets: United States. And then I would have a final article on (5) Public Toilets (Worldview) to cover countries as to which Wikipedia offers less information. These would all link to (6) Public Toilets: History. And thus, all edits on history can go in one place and everyone can be on the same page so to speak regarding how to manage the controversy. Such an effort would require going into all articles on this subject and editing erroneous history and cross-linking to the debate. The key knowledge is not merely historical, but also an understanding the political and legal implications of the changes made.

As a short term plan, one should make sure all articles on bathrooms/toilets etc. link to this particular unisex public toilet history and the debate. And if one wants to reduce personal name references, reduce them all. But do it in pursuit of a general policy for articles, not just for this one.Olliemae (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations, Olliemae, which clarified some things for me but left me still confused for others. This issue that I raised earlier was not addressed in your response: "There is now some overlap between this article an the one on public toilets, i.e. I saw some content that might fit better with public toilets in general than with unisex public toilets in particular. What do you think?". My main problem area is the section that you have called "theories of origin". In there, there is information about public toilets in general, whereas the article is about unisex public toilets in particular. For me, the overarching article is public toilets (which may or may not be unisex). Anything that relates to public toilets in general should go there and not here. The image that is used in that section has no caption so it's not clear what it's meant to show. Also, this section is so long that it would benefit from sub-headings - could you add those (and they don't have to be "standard"). - Then we have a section on "civil rights issues" followed by one called "debates". Isn't that closely related? Merge them into one? But the information under "civil rights issues" seems to be about public toilet issues in general, not about unisex public toilets in particular. Move that to the article on public toilets? Or maybe just the headings are wrong and it is in fact about unisex public toilets? I find this all very confusing and not well structured. - and if the article was an advocacy piece before then let's work together to make it non-advocacy. Let's replace the Kogan and Carter mentioning as much as possible. This is not meant to be a scientific article / literature review. EMsmile (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have done a bit more work on the structure. The Level 1 headings should be "standard headings" as much as possible but the Level 2 headings can be anything. The main change I have now made is to combine the two sections "civil rights issues" with "debates" into one. Also I have started a sub-structure for the "history" section. My next step would be to replace the Carter and Kogan as often as possible with more general statements like "statement X plus reference" rather than "Carter argues that Satement X plus reference". It's a simple change but it will make it more encyclopedic in style. Also, since the Carter paper is cited so often and since it's a long paper (72 pages!), can you please supply the respective page numbers? You probably know how to but just in case here is how the page number thing works:

Markup	Renders as
The brontosaurus is thin at one end.<ref name=elk1972>{{cite book |last=Elk |first=Anne |title=[[Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses]] |date=November 16, 1972}}</ref>{{rp|5}} Then it becomes much thicker in the middle.<ref name=elk1972 />{{rp|6}} {{reflist}}	The brontosaurus is thin at one end. Then it becomes much thicker in the middle.

EMsmile (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

My attempt at sub-headings for the history section was just a stab in the dark. Please help me on that one and improve it, thanks. Once it has sub-headings, like the ones I started, it will feel less "rambling". EMsmile (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello EMsmile. I suspect that how one perceives the article is very likely due to one's perspective. If you see the article as architectural, the political material is a diversion. So I think the first question is whether public toilets is an architectural article. If it is, then it should be moved and any unisex architectural discussions should go with it. That leaves the politics of public toilets for the remaining article. Now, in the US the only reason we are talking about public toilets is because of the unisex/sex separation issue. I don't know if you are a US person but I note that we don't have a lot of public toilets in the US just on the streets. Toilets are usually in private facilities e.g., malls, restaurants, theaters, universities etc. or in government buildings. And usually they are free. Although in private spaces, they are still called public toilets because the public can use them. But in Europe and some other places, things are different. For this reason, to describe the US situation, the prior term sex-separated toilets (or something like that) rather than unisex was a better term. Moreover, consider that some people propose keeping sex separation and still have access based on gender identity for those who so desire. Under that theory, a man who identifies as a man could not use a toilet for women. That is not unisex. But that notion isn't covered by putting information under unisex--although unisex is fine as an architecthural term. For that reason, I think it was a mistake to move the info on sex separation as a topic to unisex. I was not around when that was proposed but I see that it was suggested. (I suspect you did not move it; just making a point here.) So, as a beginning, if you move all architectural stuff to public toilets I am fine with that. I would also prefer frankly that architectural unisex discussions go with it and be a subheading to it. That would leave this as unisex toilets. Then consider whether the political material should go back to sex separation or whether this should be "unisex toilets-political" or whatever. As for your internal changes to delete Carter and Kogan references, yes do that. I was going to go through at some point to try to do it. But I note that there is a debate and I don't see a way of getting around acknowledging that fact at least once. On the page numbers, I agree and will come back to them but it seems to make more sense to do it after edits. Thank you. Now as for 72 pages, US legal journal articles are usually long. I hope I have addressed your concerns. I appreciate you efforts. Thank you.Olliemae (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Olliemae you asked where I am based: Not US but Germany and Australia. :-) That's perhaps one of the reasons why I find the article problematic: it is too centred on the issues that are specific to the US. Maybe it already starts with where you have public toilets and where you don't. When I hear the word "public toilets" I think of all the wonderful public toilets that are dotted around Australia's urban and national parks and public places. In Germany, I am thinking of those at highway rest stops, train stations but also in inner city locations and alike. When I think in the developing countries context, I think of public toilets at refugee camps, in slum areas, at markets (where many people don't have their toilets at home but rely solely on public toilets). As to the focus of the article, I think it should firstly take a global perspective. And secondly it should have a balanced amount of content for the different aspects. It should have information on design, architectural, costs, and social and historical aspects but everything in proportion. When something gets too detailed (like the US perspective on sex separation) then it might be better off in a sub-article. By the way, the unisex public toilet article is a daughter article to the public toilet article; therefore it should not be repetitive on general public toilet issuese. - I disagree with your statement "in the US the only reason we are talking about public toilets is because of the unisex/sex separation issue." This is not true. I have seen plenty of discussions around access for homeless people. Also I know PHLUSH in Portland is lobbying for more public toilets in general as they also help e.g. elderly people be able to partake in public life more. Regarding the term, here in Australia the term "unisex toilet" is very common, whereas nobody would know what is meant with "sex-separated toilet" (as those toilets would be regarded as "normal" public toilets, maybe becoming old fashioned if unisex is becoming the norm). - In case you are interested in the global aspects that I mentioned earlier you might find this discussion forum sub-category interesting reading, see here. EMsmile (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your expressed view that you want to bring the articles to a neutral and helpful place. I would be fine with the US material or all material on the debates separated out and put back either under a separate article or in a subtitle under the "sexgregation or sex separation article." I do note that the term "Sex Segregation" is biased because most US readers (on either side of the issue) would take it to imply a tie between racial segregation in the US and sex separation. That separation should be seen as "segregation" is one side of a big debate; the two have different origins historically. I believe the information was originally in a separate entry and someone deleted that and moved the content here. But as I said, you go ahead and make the changes you think make sense given your desired "global" perspective. As to my point about why we are discussing this yes, occasionally, we see articles on access for the homeless but the coverage is not widespread. (The US is locked in a political battle over whether socialism or capitalism and something in between should rule the day. We are not Europe with wide agreement that government has a significant role in providing benefits to its people. That battle also affects perspectives on the article.) So I meant that bathrooms have made their way into wide press coverage because of issues of trans access, as well as safety and privacy. That coverage cannot compare to coverage of other access questions. Now, having said all of the above, I add one point. I have seen so much advocacy as opposed to fact on Wikipedia pages related to debates over trans issues and LGBT issues that I cannot say it is worth my time to try to correct it all (only to have it altered again by a dedicated group of advocates). The best disinfectant may be external criticism that shines light on the practices. Olliemae (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

As I look back now, I may be mistaken about where the information was previously. It may have been under "bathroom bill." That might be a better place for the info. Or simply cut it all. That is fine too so long as misleading info does not remain. At any rate, there was a decision to move.Olliemae (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I had forgotten about bathroom bill. How about we leave a short summary of the history content here but move the bulk of what is currently under "history" to bathroom bill? By the way how about my attempt of giving "history" a sub-structure with subheadings, can you help improve on that? EMsmile (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Olliemae: A few points:

• Regarding the multiple articles discussing similar topics, Wikipedia generally deals with this using something called Summary style, in which there is usually one overarching article, containing numerous, brief sections each summarizing one of the main subtopics, with a {{Main}} link at the top of the section leading to the sub-article. (E.g., Dreyfus affair.)
• Being a professor is great as far as background and knowledge, but it can get in the way stylistically, as we generally don't frame articles as debates. Where there is general agreement among reliable sources, we simply state assertions in Wikipedia's voice without need to quote or name sources in the article body as the citations would contain that information in footnotes and avoid breaking up the flow of the running text. Where there is disagreement, that is handled with all major and significant minority opinions covered in proportionj to their coverage in reliable sources. (See how Dreyfus affair handles this; although scholars have differing views, the word argue doesn't occur in the running text at all, except in connection with the principals.)
• If the material you are citing is your own, or someone you know or work with, you may have a conflict of interest. I'll add a note on your Talk page about that.

Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see I added one in the past in connection with some other article, so merely added a follow-up note, since you already know the drill about WP:COI. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As to why this topic is being discussed, I wanted to give my support to EMsmile who said, "I disagree with your statement 'in the US the only reason we are talking about public toilets is because of the unisex/sex separation issue.' This is not true." I agree with EMsmile, and have also seen discussions more recently about homeless issues, as well as gender equality aspects, as well as earlier issues concerning ergonomics and design going back to the mid-70s, e.g., in Alexander Kira's book for example, which is apparently not referenced at all in this article, but certainly should be. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me on this. I've been away from Wikipedia for months. This article and its talk-page have become heart-sinks for me. I appreciate the care and attention taken by the core of editors, and I certainly appreciate the energy and the erudition of the new editor (retired academics can be ace contributors). However, many sections of the article, and indeed some of the talkpage comments, are just impossibly long. The article as a whole is unreadable for the average person interested in getting an overview - and perhaps here is the place to reflect that the average reader is not an American. My skills, such as they are, lie with commenting here on proposed overall structure, and much much later, wikignoming - particularly inserting relevant links. As such, I'll say that I don't object to a roll-back, as long as there is collective energy (not mine) to scrupulously re-add useful material. Instead of a rollback, or in addition to it, is the possibility of creating daughter articles, with summaries in this one. I like that approach in general; unisex public toilet is a daughter of public toilet, which is in turn under the umbrella of toilet, and that's as it should be. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Carbon Caryatid and pity that you have been away from Wikipedia, good to see you back. I agree with you. I think most of us agree that this article requires culling, or rather moving of content to a daughter article. The question is what is the daughter article to unisex public toilet which would receive some paragraphs from the current sections on history, Civil rights issues and debates, all those debates in the US... There is an article called sex segregation which actually refers to this one in the lead. I thought maybe bathroom bill might be the right daughter article but maybe not. Do we need to create a new one? If yes, what title? And should it be speficially about the US maybe, would that help? There used to be an article called Sex segregation in public restrooms) which we merged with this one because at the time it had a lot of overlap. Should we perhaps reinstate that article but have it clearly as a daughter article without any overlap? EMsmile (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

OK friends, I have done a HUGE job on this article tonight - spent a few hours on it (once I started I couldn't stop!) - I hope you all like it. I did heaps of edits and documented them all along the way. I moved some of the excessive details towards articles where it fitted. I moved some of the broader stuff to public toilet. I removed most of the "Carter states that" and "Carter disagrees with" by rewording it. I condensed some stuff. I copy edited. And I finally understood what Carter/Olliemae was on about, i.e. why understanding that scholarly dispute is important. It relates to how current-day opposition against unisex public toilets would be framed/received: as something that is prudish or as something that is looking out for safety of women (and NOT based on violence from transmen but violence from any men). I have also (at the very end) fixed up the lead section accordingly. Olliemae please take another look to see if you agree broadly and that I haven't messed anything up. So now it's also clear that we don't need a rollback anymore! I am sure further improvements are still possible and called for. EMsmile (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

For your information, I have moved some text blocks that was very specific and detailed about legislation in the U.S. to the daughter article bathroom bill.EMsmile (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed an essay-type piece about showers and changing rooms

I have just removed this piece of text (it's interesting but it's written in essay style without any references and I think it might go beyond the scope of this article; we could perhaps put it back in in a very condensed form and with a reference): In the debate over sex-separation, a focus on the "toilet" may be too narrow in the sense that the debate over toilets is just a subset of a larger debate over intimate spaces that one has a need to access but where one's nakedness might pose issues of vulnerability. These include public changing and bathing or showering spaces. One cannot consider sex-separation in "toilets" without considering also these other types of public spaces. Finally, the debate also involves issues of degree. Should unisex toilets be the dominant standard with some (or no) alternatives or should sex- separated toilets be the standard with some (or no) alternatives? And if there are alternatives, should anyone be required to use a particular set? EMsmile (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Is sex segregation always that bad? edit: "do all reliable sources say sex segregation is bad or are there also reliable sources that say sex segregation has its place for public toilets?"

I am not agreeing to a recent set up edits that are being made to this article. Basically, you are writing it in a quite "biased" way in my opinion, glorifying unisex public toilets and making it seem like sex segragation is akin to racism, e.g. Lamilli. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point of this article but I thought we were explaining that unisex public toilets have a place but we are not condemning all gender-separated facilities, or are we? I reckon a lot of people are quite happy with using gender-separated toilets for particular reasons. Let's keep it neutral without making it sound like gender-spearated toilets are somehow an evil thing. - Another thing: we have to explain what the different options are with dealing with sinks. Often, the sinks are outside the cubicles and are therefore in a semi-public space. This is where many women might quite prefer to not be surrounded by men. If the sinks are inside of the cubicles, then it's a different story (but also more expensive as the cublicles need to be bigger then). Anyway, my main point is: I think it would be great if this article could be encyclopedic and neutral and not start pushing a certain agenda. - Also keep in mind the situation is very different for different countries. You cannot simply extrapolate the situation in the US and UK to e.g. Pakistan or India. Norms, expectations etc. are different. The article should not be solely focused on the situation in the US.EMsmile (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

EMsmile, Whether it's "bad" or "good" is beside the point, and Wikipedia does not make any judgments of that nature on any article in Wikipedia's voice. Putting it another way, the answer to your question, "we are not condemning all gender-separated facilities, or are we?" is a resounding, No. As a corollary, neither are we supporting them. Wikipedia merely reports what reliable sources say about the matter, whether condemnation, approbation, or any other attitude, in proportion to the weight of commentary on the subject by different sources. In addition, please remember that according to the talk page guideline, the talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article; it is not a forum for discussing your own views on the subject, or debating the topic. The middle part of your post above starting with, "I reckon..." and ending "my main point is" is thus not appropriate here, as it simply states your own opinion about the topic. The part afterward about NPOV and globalizing the topic is more to the point, but is rather general.

Although I agree with you as far as the US/UK vs. south Asia issue is concerned, rather than simply mention it, why not go find some references about south Asia on the topic, and either propose them here, or add them directly to the article yourself, along with a summary in your own words of what they have to say? That's how to really improve the article. The worst that could happen, is that it would be reverted, but that would prompt a discussion here per WP:BRD about a specific content edit, which is, imho, a more fruitful avenue to improving an article than adding general commentary about what's wrong with it. Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I can only agree with the recently added comment. @EMsmile: (1) This is not about opinions and whose opinion should be reflected in the article. Indeed, I did add significant content to the article and I make no bones about the fact that I support the issue, i.e. the move to unisex toilets. Yet, I wouln't consider it biased what I added. I also included a lengthy section about problems and disadvantages which was not included before. We might be of different opinions about that topic, but if you add what you think is missing from the article (for instance the sinks), the result should be a balanced and two-sided article. (2) I don't see the point why I should "describe my changes" if you might as well just "compare versions". If I delete things others just included, this might be necessary. If I just add new content, what's the purpose? (3) I would be "...glorifying unisex public toilets and making it seem like sex segragation is akin to racism...I reckon a lot of people are quite happy with using gender-separated toilets for particular reasons." - I reckon a lot of people were quite happy with racial segragation either, so this shouldn't be an argument.--Lamilli (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot I agree with everything you said. This article should be balanced and neutral. The recent edits by Lamilli were not balanced, as you can also glean from his/her reply just above here. I should have made the heading of this section "do all reliable sources condemn sex segregation as a bad thing?" or something like that. As you can imagine you can find references for both points of view. If one editor only adds references for one side, but doesn't even try to explain the other side, then I have a problem. At the same time, I may not always have time to fix it myself. Also this is not my area of expertise so it would take me quite some time to find the suitable references. Therefore, I have put my criticisms here on the talk page in the hope that someone who has worked on this article in the past, or people who want to work on this in future, read this, and then hopefully help to make it into a balanced article. Lamilli: It is simply good Wikipedia etiquette to give a short explanation as to WHY you have made an edit, such as added or removed something. If you remove something, you can say in the edit summary "removed because controversial but no source" or "removed because this is repetitive". If you edit a sentence for clarity you can write "copy edits" or "changed around for clarity" (I am actually surprised that I should have to tell you the advantages of adding a comment into the edit summary field? It is so obvious to me; this is supposed to be a collaborative effort so surely you would agree with me that it's easier if we tell each other briefly WHY we made certain changes? EMsmile (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@EMsmile: As I said, I have written a detailed paragraph about disadvantages, problems in the implementation and criticism against unisex toilets. Similar in scope or even more than the positive points. I consider this balanced. If you see further problems and critique, go on and add them. I just haven't come up with any. Conserning the sinks: neither had I come up with the idea that anyone could object to shared sinks/washbasins. Nor have I found anything about that. If you have...go on and include that.--Lamilli (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

by the way, I had the same problem with the article female urinal. I felt that also there, Lamilli was pushing a point, i.e. very much glorifying female urinals rather than just describing how they work and where they are used etc. The article is not bad but I don't think it sufficiently neutral, and the same is happening here now. Just a word of caution, that's all. Apart from that, it's good that more content is being added and the references are being updated etc. So thanks for that. EMsmile (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I must say, I'm a little surprised. The only discussion we had there was about an image. We had different points of view, you preferred another one (do you?), and I resolved the conflict. That's it. Apart from that, the only contact we had on this talk page was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_urinal#Excellent_article As I said, I don't feel we had much conflict (or conversation at all) on this article. Anyhow, we should discuss this topic where it belongs: on the talk page there.--Lamilli (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I just mentioned the thing about the female urinals to indicate that you might have a certain "style" of editing that brings out your opinion more than perhaps a neutral point of view. It's easy to fall into that trap. It happens to me as well when I work on an article where I think I have a lot of prior knowledge, e.g. UDDT. It's true that I didn't write much about my concerns on the talk page but I did put detailed comments in my edit summaries which I hope you have taken notice of. E.g. here where I had written "this sounds like wishful thinking to me (also the part about advantages does not need to be repeated here again). Or do you have any references to back up this statement? I have lived in Germany for years and have not seen a change, i.e. have never come across a female urinal in a public toilet yet!)" - Anyhow, I don't want to appear overly critical, I do appreciate all the work you have put into these articles and I look forward to improving them further in a collaborative effort with hopefully many Wikipedians who will join us. EMsmile (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This has now been sorted out. There was indeed a bias (saying sex separation is always bad); now with the recent reworking it's become more objective, showing both sides of the argument. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-merge

Congrats on being bold. The merged article still needs a lot of work, not least with sourcing, but it's in a lot better position now.

I think one distinction that needs to be clarified in the article, and then alluded to in the lead, is the difference between a large single facility that can be used by anyone (often designed for wheelchair users and parents with infants), and a multi-user facility (either with the only change being the "men" or "women" sign on the door, or a purpose-built or redesigned set of cubicles). For example, most public buildings that I go into in the UK have three doors leading off a corridor: disabled/family room (one large space, one toilet, one sink, one emergency pull alarm); men (urinals, a couple of cubicles, sinks); women (several cubicles, sinks). That disabled/family room could easily be called a unisex toilet. I don't think that is what this article is about, but it's not clear what all the sources are talking about. So we as article writers need to set out what we mean. (By way of contrast, I think we did a good job at portable toilet, where some items known under that name can be picked up with one hand, and others need industrial lifting gear.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bold move and I hope people are OK with it. But I am glad I did it because now we can focus all of our attention on one article, instead of two that had plenty of overlap. User:Lamilli thanks for adding the new content, although some of the content you added without providing references. Can you please go back and add the references in each case? Also, you seem to be adding a lot of quotes. Not sure if quotes are really all that important/necessary/helpful? EMsmile (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And User:Carbon Caryatid I agree with you, it still needs a lot of work to take out repetition. I wonder if the main authors of the two articles mainly had the transgender issues in mind? That kind of toilet that you mentioned (disabled/family room) is indeed unisex but probably not what the authors of the article mainly had in mind - as it's not meant to be used by able-bodied persons who are not accompanying anyone (?). It seems that the main focus of the article currently is that issue in the United States where transgender & intersex people are saying they are not comfortable with being forced to choose either male or female. Having said that, I think this article needs to take a global perspective, not just a United States focused perspective. For example, in developing countries it is still very much a conviction by all stakeholders that school toilets and public toilets should be separated by gender. I think we need to explain whether the issues in those countries are different to the issues in the United States (is it possibly a "luxury" problem?). I don't have the answers. If someone wants to dive more deeply into this (i.e. the developing countries perspective), you might find it useful to read these discussion we have had on the SuSanA discussion forum: https://forum.susana.org/170-shared-toilets-community-toilets-or-public-toilets/21578-are-public-toilets-inclusive-of-transgender-and-intersex-people and here: https://forum.susana.org/170-shared-toilets-community-toilets-or-public-toilets/18899-social-inclusion-toilet-rights-and-legal-protection-for-transgender-americans-and-unisex-public-toilets and here: https://forum.susana.org/170-shared-toilets-community-toilets-or-public-toilets/22012-sex-segregated-toilets EMsmile (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

EMsmile, without going through the article history, I would hazard a guess that most of it has been written by US, UK, and other Anglo-First-World editors, with more of an interest in gender issues than sanitation. NB at the top of this page - this article has been assigned to several students on modules about sociology and "lgbt cultural representations of sexuality", not engineering. Many of the sources are recent journalism. Yes, "the main authors of the two articles mainly had the transgender issues in mind" - that seems clear to me. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion, and agree with Carbon Caryatid. The article content clearly represents an Anglo-saxon view exclusively. As the title does not match the content, it either needs expansion and should probably be tagged {{Globalize}} in the interim, or it needs a rename to what the article is actually about, which is basically Unisex public toilets in the United States. Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see that CC already suggested something very similar regarding another article, about three discussions down from this one. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That was a year ago. Meanwhile, a fair bit of content has been added that is NOT about the US. There is information about European countries and developing countries. So I don't think a title of "Unisex public toilets in the United States" would be correct, neither do I think the "globalise" tag is needed. If you find there is still too much content about the US, then this could possibly be moved to a daughter article like bathroom bill. But I don't think that it has an extreme focus on the United States anymore. EMsmile (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Urinals and references

I am starting this section here to prevent an edit war... (@User:Mathglot and those editing without a login): Could all editors with a strong view about the urinals part please write here first before changing it again in the article? Surely we can dig up some references that would support the statements about urinals that:

• Urinals for males are useful and should probably be included in one way or another also in unisex toilets (unless the unisex toilets exists in parallel to a men's only toilet).
• Urinals in open rows might not be suitable for unisex toilets as women would find it awkward to see men peeing, and vice versa (this is probably a no brainer and might not need a reference??)
• Urinals could be included inside of cubicles but this would negate their advantages of less space requirement.

Is there anything in the materials by PHLUSH (referenced in the article) that could be used to sustantiate any of this? EMsmile (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion about it one way or the other, and don’t care what the article says about it. Per WP:V, unsupported statements may be challenged and removed. A couple of IPs keep reverting to reinstall their preferred language without a source, contrary to WP:BRD and WP:EW. I’ll leave the article alone to give this section plenty of time to reach some conclusion or other, but if there are unsupported assertions in the article and the discussion goes nowhere, I will remove the unsourced material again. See WP:BURDEN. Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that but certain "common sense" statements need no reference, right? Would you agree it is common sense to state that: "Urinals in open rows might not be suitable for unisex toilets as women would find it awkward to see men peeing, and vice versa"? EMsmile (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible that you are monocultural and lack a global view about this? If it’s as common sense as you say, it should be trivial to find references for it. I don’t doubt that you will, but I’ll bet my hat they will all be from a very limited set of predominantly white, WASP, cultures influenced by Victorian attitudes in the past. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the edits I object to as unsourced original research, are these and these by 73.60.41.24, and these edits by 216.107.220.162. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that I lack a global view about this. As per WP:FACTS there is no need to have inline citations for "General common knowledge: Statements that the average adult recognizes as true". (here) (and it's not true that it's always "easy" to find a source that states something, especially not in the sanitation context). I have travelled to many countries and have dealt with sanitation topics for a long time. I think the statement that "Women would find it awkward to see men peeing (when using urinals in open rows)" is most likely very universal. One could change it to: "Urinals in open rows might not be suitable for unisex toilets as women in most cultures would find it awkward to see men peeing." If you know of countries where this is not be the case, I would be curious to know. I can vouch for the fact that nudity is regarded differently in different countries (e.g. in Germany we have mixed saunas, no problem). But urinating in front of the other gender? Really? Are you aware of present cultures where this is not regarded as embarrassing? Please do tell. EMsmile (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And I don't understand why you find those statements that you highlighted above that controversial/challengeable that they would necessarily require citations. They could be worded differently, and citations could probably be found but mostly they are just making "common sense" statements about where urinals would have to be located in unisex public toilets. You'd probably find sources for both schools of thoughts: for those arguing that urinals should not be in the open and for those arguing that we need to change our attitude and be less embarrased about them, and keep them in the open areas. Anyhow - might not be worth spending much time on this. When/if I find more reliable sources (e.g. design guides about unisex public toilets) I can add those. But meanwhile, wouldn't a suitable compromise be to leave the content in but to add "citation needed" where you think citations are missing? Just wondering. This might be a more constructive approach. Or we could come up with wording that is broad and general which we can agree on and which is neither "original research" nor controversial/debatable. - I hope that those editors that have edited anonymously so far will join us here on the talk page (not sure if they get a notification of this talk if they don't use a login?). EMsmile (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOCOMMON. WP:BURDEN. WP:ONUS. You've spent a whole lot more effort and time than I have on this article, and ultimately, I'm not going to expend too much more time here. I don't think you're following policy correctly, but I also don't care that much. Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A few comments. I do have some sympathy with both points of view: on the one hand, a lot of the statements made seem to be fairly self-evident; on the other, it's not good to have (in its current form) a detailed 3-paragraph section containing only 2 citations, and I'd have thought we should be able to expand on that. My own opinion is that the claims that urinals are more space-efficient and environmentally friendly than cubicle toilets are objective and uncontroversial, and don't really need explicit sources; but the claim that women being able to see men urinating may cause awkwardness and embarrassment, although again fairly obvious, is a more subjective comment, and I think does need a reference or two. Incidentally, it's not solely a problem of women-seeing-men; many men find the enforced intimacy of urinals offputting, and try to avoid them - see this post for example. I am also concerned about this edit that removed all mention of urinals from the lede. The need for referencing in the lede is generally less than for the body of the article, so long as it's an accurate summary of the body (see MOS:LEDECITE), and I don't think there's anything unduly controversial or inappropriate in a bland statement that the provision of urinals in unisex toilets "may be problematic". Eric Pode lives (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Terminology: Sex-separated is more neutral term than sex-segregated

Just letting you know that I have replaced "sex segregated" mostly with "sex-separated" in this article. It is the more neutral term than sex-segregated; the latter seems to imply that it was done to disadvantage women, just like race-segregation disadvantaged black people. Like I also clarified here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation It is notable that “segregation” is a term that has long been associated with racial segregation in the United States. The point is that there all also sorts of reasons for sex-separated toilet, and the aim to discriminate against women is only one (unproven) hypothesis. It can also serve to protect women. Therefore, let's stick to the neutral term "separated" instead of "segregated". EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree and plan to revert unless you can justify this. Sex-segregated is widely used (more widely than separated), carries no connotation of racial segregation, or of discrimination against women. Separated is not more neutral, and is unwarranted. Please put it back the way it was. Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you. See in the lead of the article on sex segregation: "The term "sex separation" is a more neutral term than "sex segregation", at least in the United States." This is something I added there a while ago and it seems to have stuck fine. I don't know if you are from the U.S.? In the US the term "race segregation" is for sure a negative term; this makes "sex segregation" also into something negative, whereas "sex separation" is neutral. That was the whole problem we had with this article here for some time. Some editors had added a lot of content that gave the "conventional" public toilets (which are separated by sex) a negative connotation and hailed the unisex public toilets as the "be all and end all". Even though they come with their own problems for safety of females (not from transgender people but men in general). Therefore, I feel strongly about using a more neutral language, and sex separation is more neutral. What does everyone else think? EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

And here is more information from the sex segregation article: In the United States some scholars use the term “sex separation” and not sex segregation". It is notable that “segregation” is a term that has long been associated with racial segregation in the United States. EMsmile (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As you are an editor who has been around for years, I'm sure you know better than to quote Wikipedia as a source for anything. And you certainly can't go add something to another article, and then come back and say it's true because it's in the other article.

Neither can you claim that a particular word like segregation has such a bad connotation (despite the fact that the term is widely used in reliable sources) that it poisons any expression that contains it, or turns it into some kind of pariah-by-association. I.e., the conclusion of your statement, "In the US the term 'race segregation' is for sure a negative term; this makes 'sex segregation' also into something negative" is false. That's a very bold claim of associational pejoration but it has no basis in fact. In particular, it's provably false here, as can be seen in the numerous academic publications in the last twenty years, which clearly show a mix of articles about racial segregation, as well as articles about many other topics:

top 10 results for segregate on Google scholar since 2000

Meet, discuss, and segregate! We present a model of opinion dynamics in which agents adjust continuous opinions as a result of random binary encounters whenever their difference in opinion is below a given threshold. ANG mutations segregate with familial and 'sporadic' amyotrophic lateral sclerosis We recently identified angiogenin (ANG) as a candidate susceptibility gene for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by adult-onset loss of motor neurons. Haematopoietic stem cells do not asymmetrically segregate chromosomes or retain BrdU Stem cells are proposed to segregate chromosomes asymmetrically during self-renewing divisions so that older ('immortal') DNA strands are retained in daughter stem cells whereas newly synthesized strands segregate to differentiating cells 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Listeria-based cancer vaccines that segregate immunogenicity from toxicity The facultative intracellular bacterium Listeria monocytogenes is being developed as a cancer vaccine platform because of its ability to induce potent innate and adaptive immunity. Naturally transmitted segmented filamentous bacteria segregate with diabetes protection in nonobese diabetic mice Vertebrates typically harbor a rich gastrointestinal microbiota, which has coevolved with the host over millennia and is essential for several host physiological functions, in particular maturation of the immune system. The teleomorph of the weakly aggressive segregate of Leptosphaeria maculans Leptosphaeria biglobosa n. sp. is described for the weakly virulent (or non-aggressive) pathogen causing blackleg of oilseed rape and canola. Lgr5 intestinal stem cells have high telomerase activity and randomly segregate their chromosomes Somatic cells have been proposed to be limited in the number of cell divisions they can undergo. This is thought to be a mechanism by which stem cells retain their integrity preventing disease. COPI-coated ER-to-Golgi transport complexes segregate from COPII in close proximity to ER exit sites Transport of proteins between the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus is mediated by two distinct membrane coat complexes, COPI and COPII. Genetic, biochemical and morphological data have accumulated into a model which suggests a sequential mode of … Accelerated aging and failure to segregate damaged proteins in Sir2 mutants can be suppressed by overproducing the protein aggregation-remodeling factor The levels of oxidatively damaged, carbonylated, proteins increase with the replicative age of yeast mother cells. We show here that such carbonylated proteins are associated with Hsp104p-containing protein aggregates and that these aggregates, like oxidized proteins … Molecular phylogeny of subtribe Artemisiinae (Asteraceae), including Artemisia and its allied and segregate genera Subtribe Artemisiinae of Tribe Anthemideae (Asteraceae) is composed of 18 largely Asian genera that include the sagebrushes and mugworts. The subtribe includes the large cosmopolitan, wind-pollinated genus Artemisia, as well as several smaller genera and …

top 10 results for segregation on Google scholar since 2000

Occupational ghettos: The worldwide segregation of women and men Maria Charles and David B. Grusky (with substantial contributions from Kim Weeden, Mariko Chang, Joon Han and Jesper Sørensen) have provided the community of employment segregation scholars with a powerful review and extension of their sustained comparative... City of walls: crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo " This is an extraordinary treatment of a difficult problem.... Much more than a conventional comparative study, City of Walls is a genuinely transcultural, transnational work—the first of its kind that I have read."—George E. Marcus, author of Ethnography Through Thick & Thin" … The dynamics of racial residential segregation ▪ Abstract The publication of American Apartheid was influential in shifting public discourse back toward racial residential segregation as fundamental to persisting racial inequality. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health Racial residential segregation is a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. The physical separation of the races by enforced residence in certain areas is an institutional mechanism of racism that was designed to protect whites from social interaction with blacks … Measures of multigroup segregation In this paper we derive and evaluate measures of multigroup segregation. After describing four ways to conceptualize the measurement of multigroup segregation—as the disproportionality in group (eg, race) proportions across organizational units (eg, schools or … Genetical genomics: the added value from segregation The recent successes of genome-wide expression profiling in biology tend to overlook the power of genetics. We here propose a merger of genomics and genetics into 'genetical genomics'. Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation In this selection, Teresa Caldeira examines fortified enclaves–what are sometimes referred to as “gated communities”–in São Paulo, Brazil and Los Angeles. Walled communities are an increasing presence in cities and suburbs around the world and Caldeira is interested in … Fission and selective fusion govern mitochondrial segregation and elimination by autophagy Accumulation of depolarized mitochondria within β‐cells has been associated with oxidative damage and development of diabetes. To determine the source and fate of depolarized mitochondria, individual mitochondria were photolabeled and tracked through fusion and … Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America Integrated schools may still be substantively segregated if friendships fall within race. Drawing on contact theory, this study tests whether school organization affects friendship segregation in a national sample of adolescent friendship networks. Nanoscale segregation in room temperature ionic liquids Room-temperature ionic liquids (RTILs) are organic salts that are characterized by low melting points. They are considered to possess a homogeneous microscopic structure. We provide the first experimental evidence of the existence of nanoscale heterogeneities in neat …

Another way to look at it, is to find the top word pairs in published books since 1980 using that term. That is, what two-word terms like, e.g, racial segregation (preceded by an adjective) or school segregation (preceded by a noun) exist in published books? This will tell us if the well has been poisoned against other use of that term. And here is what we see (showing top ten adjective-digrams, and top ten noun-digrams):

• The top ten adjectives preceding "segregation" in books from 1980-2000 are: (racial, residential, occupational, spatial, social, legal, ethnic, Racial (caps), sexual, such).
• The top ten nouns are: (school, gender, sex, Crow, chromosome, jure, housing, job, surface, age).
• Consolidated list: top 20 adjective and noun digrams

It seems clear to me that the well of academic inquiry has not been poisoned by association at all. In fact, the last link shows that sex segregation is the number four term in books, and gender segregation is number five (out of twenty).

As far as your last claim is concerned, that some sex scholars use sex separation and not sex segregation, that is absolutely true, but they are a tiny minority. But, per WP:DUEWEIGHT, we are supposed to accord majority views preference, minority views less space, and ignore tiny minorities entirely, or relegate them to "See also" sections, or footnotes. I don't know where the cutoff is for "tiny minority", but there are forty times as many uses of sex segregation than sex separation in books, as you can see here; i.e., out of every hundred books, roughly two use sex separation and 98 use sex segregation. For me, that's "tiny minority" territory, but I don't know what you think.

As far as the article sex segregation itself is concerned, if you made changes there based on your assumptions or reading of the frequency of the terms sex separation and sex segregation that you describe above, you should maybe go review your edits to see if they still hold up, based on the facts of the situation. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if this kind of numbers game leads us anywhere. Just because a term used more widely doesn't discount the point that I have been making. The same argument is actually listed in the Wikipedia article itself, see under "history":

Some scholars have tied toilet sex-separation to segregation based on race discrimination in the US.[67] Advocates of this view argue that these approaches share a theme in which a warning is issued against the looming threats: violence and sexual assaults would increase.[21][15][68][67][69] Some political activists have drawn on the commonality between public toilets being segregated formerly by race and still by sex.[70][71]

This to me clearly proves that the term "sex segregation" is a "loaded term", in the context of public toilets at least, if not everywhere. What is your main reason for objecting to it apart from the fact that you are saying it is less commonly used? I can try to hunt down further references if that would help to convince you to reconsider? EMsmile (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you may have identified the locus of the disagreement, and if so, that is good, because it will help cut down a lot of futile discussion between the two of us, based on what appears to be a wholly different set of axioms. Here's what I mean:

You said above,

I am not sure if this kind of numbers game leads us anywhere.

But for me, the "numbers game" is everything. My understanding of how to achieve Wikipedia's core policy of Neutrality in an article involves assessing the reliable sources, and representing significant viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This is the WP:DUEWEIGHT provision of WP:NPOV and it is crucial to maintaining neutrality. When you talk about the "proportion" of something in reliable sources, that is, in fact, a numbers game. In order to know how to write the article, you need to have a sense of the numbers of reliable sources that support the spectrum of different opinion about the subject, so you can work out the proportion of each. So in my view, the numbers game is crucial for resolving the disagreement we are having.

To me, what you appear to be doing is ignoring numbers (you said you were), and instead providing a few sources of your choice, that are either in sympathy with your point of view, or perhaps that you found persuasive enough to take on their point of view by what you see as the strength and accuracy of their arguments. Either way, I categorically reject that approach as non-policy based, and an invalid method of determining the outcome of a dispute.

You go on to point out some examples from your sources, including your "loaded term" example and what it proves to you, but to me it seems pointless to engage in a discussion about what some particular source says about this, on either side of the discussion, because it would just be a sideshow getting us no closer to an understanding of what the majority and minority viewpoints are in the sources; that is, it would get us no closer to an understanding of the numbers game. (Beyond that, I find it unacceptable to use the content of a Wikipedia article to support your argument about what reliable sources are saying, per WP:WINARS, but that's a relatively minor point here.)

If you think the numbers game leads us nowhere, and that "Just because a term used more widely doesn't discount the point that I have been making" or that a "some scholars" summary is persuasive to you, then I don't think we have a lot of common ground about how to resolve this, because I think the numbers game is everything, and is the foundation upon which WP:DUEWEIGHT stands, which in turn governs how this should be resolved. I believe that the numbers I provided above in the data are persuasive, under my understanding of policy. I expected a disagreement from you, either that the data I presented were biased, or didn't present the whole picture, or that the data were correct but my analysis was faulty, and I was prepared to respond to that. But you didn't respond in that fashion; instead what I am hearing, is that that kind of data simply isn't that important here, and other issues are more important for determing what the article should say.

It's possible I have misunderstood you; if so, please correct me. But if I have fairly represented your views of what's important as far as how to go about resolving this, then I think we are at an impasse here, because we have different understandings about how to resolve a content dispute. I'll have another read of WP:DR, but I think we could consider WP:3O, or listing the discussion at some projects or boards to get some additional eyeballs on this. I'll look around. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

---

References

"Segregation" v. "separation": what term is most prevalent in the context of neutral discussion of toilet provision?

I don't have terribly strong views on this point (it seems to me like a bit of an angels-on-pinheads debate, and I'd be happy with either word), but I would just like to clarify what – from my perspective – is the point at issue, because I think it's a bit more complicated than has been presented so far. The verb "separate" can be used in either an active or a passive sense: a group of walkers, coming to a fork in the road, can either "separate" (on their own initiative) to go left or right, or "be separated" (by some agent of authority). That's why its connotations are entirely neutral (I hope we can agree on that). The word "segregate", by contrast, carries a clear implication of an imposed division of the group, either by conscious decision of some authority, or by social conditions or similar. That's why its connotations (especially in the context of race) are so negative.

It's unhelpful to debate the extent to which the word "segregation" is used in general in scholarly discourse (it's widely used, as Mathglot has shown); we need to focus on "sex segregation", and more specifically on the terms used in the field of toilet provision. The sexes can be separated for wholly beneficent reasons (e.g. women's refuges), or in the interests of equality (e.g. sports), or for more dubious reasons (e.g. distinct employment spheres). The issue of where toilets fit onto that spectrum is debatable, as the article makes pretty clear. The question then becomes, are toilets "separate" because that's something users themselves want, in the interests of privacy and personal security; or are they "segregated" because that's what's been imposed by the patriarchy and the weight of tradition?

So the "numbers" question I'd like to see answered, from Google Scholar or elsewhere, is this (and I don't have the mastery of diagnostic tools to address it: perhaps Mathglot does). Specifically in the context of discussion of toilet provision, and within the past 10 years, is "segregation" or "separation" the more commonly used term? Better still, are we able to filter out those instances where "segregation" is being used in a loaded way by advocates of unisex toilets, and look solely at more neutral discussions of the issue? Eric Pode lives (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eric Pode lives:, thanks for your comments. Epecially in light of your last paragraph above, I tend to agree with you that that's where we should be going, and if you spawn a new discussion about that, I'd like to address it. The problem I'm having, is mixing apples and oranges, or perhaps they're just valencia oranges and blood oranges, but I still don't want to mix them. Here's why: This article has enough issues already, that I find it beneficial to try to define and tackle one thing at a time, resolve it if possible, and go on to the next. (Or even, attack multiple indepenent things at once, but neatly, in their own sections.)

This section, as indicated by the section title created by its creator, is about terminology, and the claim that sex-separated is more neutral term than sex-segregated. That is a perfect section title, especially for an article with some controversy, because it raises an issue with a binary choice: either it is more neutral, or it isn't. It might *even* be the case, as you said in your last paragraph, that in a more limited context it turns out to be the case whereas it might not be in the more general case.

But you have to understand why this section was created in the first place; it was in order to justify this bold edit of 09:53, May 24, 2019 to the article, which changed seven occurrences of sex-segregated to sex-separated with the following edit summary: "sex-separated is the more neutral term than sex-segregated; the latter seems to imply that it was done to disadvantage women, just like race-segregation disadvantaged black people. (take to talk page if needed)." I doubted this claim, and ran the numbers to find out, with the results you see. While your concerns about a more targeted search are absolutely on the mark, and should be looked into (new section, please!), *this* section was merely about addressing the bold edit, and as it turns out, it was unjustified and should be undone. I'll take care of that right after this edit. (Unfortunately, it can't be undone in one click due to subsequent edits, so will have to be done the long way.) Also, note that it doesn't mean that edit cannot be *re-done*, after a more targeted analysis, such as the one you propose, is effected. .

So from my point of view, you've gone on to the next-level question, which should be, imho, in its own section both to define what it is we're discussing, as well as because this section is long, and is soon reaching its natural conclusion, imho. So if you're willing, I encourage you to simply add a new H2 section header above your 20:32 post to set it (and this reply) off. Based on what you've said above, you could name it, == What term is most prevalent in the context of neutral discussion of toilet provision? ==, but feel free to call it whatever you like. (Also, please drop your indent colons to bring your post back to flush left, and knock my indents down to one colon; I hereby waive WP:TPO so you can do that.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done The "bold edit" has been reversed. Note that this *only* reversed the occurrences of "sex-separated" strictly from that one edit. The other thirteen occurrences of the term still remain, and date back to edits by a COI editor; which should be dealt with (or not) separately. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

New section created, as proposed by Mathglot. Eric Pode lives (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with what User:Eric Pode lives says, I think he/she has hit the nail on the head. Looking at key references cited in the unisex public toilet article you can see that Kogan uses "sex segregation" and he is pushing for unisex public toilets, and has compared "sex segregation" to "race segregation", whereas Carter uses "sex separation" and she is saying the reasons why the sex separated toilets have existed since the beginning of public toilets is not to discriminate women (like in race segregation) but to protect them from male violence. We can hunt around for more references that explain the difference between sex separation and sex segregation in the context of public toilets. Maybe not enough has been published about that yet? But at the very least I think we owe it to the readers to point out that there could be a difference in semantics/connotation, as evidenced by the deliberate choice of different words by different authors, and as evidenced by everyday use of the two terms (which User: Eric Pode lives point out): The verb "separate" can be used in either an active or a passive sense: a group of walkers, coming to a fork in the road, can either "separate" (on their own initiative) to go left or right, or "be separated" (by some agent of authority). That's why its connotations are entirely neutral (I hope we can agree on that). The word "segregate", by contrast, carries a clear implication of an imposed division of the group, either by conscious decision of some authority, or by social conditions or similar. That's why its connotations (especially in the context of race) are so negative. - There are 83 people watching this page so I encourage more people who are reading this discussion to chime in. EMsmile (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Issue with section on "History of Sex-Seperated Toilets"

This part here,

"Theories that claim sex-separation was implemented to place women at a disadvantage, and theories that ignore the historical role that sexual harassment and sexual assault have played in women's history, may actually harm women because they erase and contort women's history, under a mission of providing relief for other vulnerable groups.[1]:289–90 Women's struggles for equality is intricately tied up with efforts to find protection from sexual assault and sexual abuse.[1]:287-290, 258-254

The public toilet histories that claim patriarchy and sexism drove sex-separation treat women's experiences as if they did not exist and therefore result in silencing women to gain relief primarily for the male-bodied. Such approaches pose a clear conflict of interest between protecting women and acknowledging their struggles and achieving the integration of trans persons, especially male-bodied transpersons."

Doesn't the implication that sex-separation exists as a protection for "women's bodies" both reaffirm the very materiality of the qua female which is necessary to create the conditions of a male/female binary—and, therefore, the "historical" necessecity of a separation—and negate those violent experiences which are not heterosexual, i.e. we're talking as if nobody has been raped in a locker room (or any sex-segragated space) before.

Also, I wouldn't have to lodge this criticism if there wasn't a clear political bias present in the second paragraph. Acolaprete (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Acolaprete could you please clarify what changes you wish to propose and if you have other reliable sources available? Upon re-reading the section in question I find it worded in quite a complex way which is difficult for laypersons to follow. Should be improved. EMsmile (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias concerns in certain sections, pertaining to usage of language and disproportionate use of a single source

This is my first time doing this kind of thing, so do be understanding if my concerns or descriptions are inadequate.

The introductory paragraphs at the top of the page appear to emphasize a particular viewpoint stated briefly as an alternative theory in the first paragraph under the sub-heading "Primary rationales of sex-separation" without mentioning the other discussed theories: "Safety from sexual harassment and privacy were likely two main goals of sex-separation of public toilets, and factors such as morality also played roles.[2]:228, 278, 288–89"

The body of text under the sub-heading "Western sex-separation as pre-modern" appears to give undue attention to a fringe theory from an extreme minority, this conclusion coming from the observation that the entire sub-heading includes citations exclusively from a single source, Sexism in the "Bathroom Debates": How Bathrooms Really Became Separated by Sex, an essay published in the student-run, (seemingly) student-only, non-peer-reviewed publication, Yale Law & Policy Review. If there is some aspect of the publication lending to its credibility, I would appreciate hearing that clarification. However, the use of this source as the sole reference for the entire section without evidence of its degree of acceptance with broader audiences greatly detracts from its credibility as a valid theory.

There are also instances within the sub-heading that use misleading language to suggest agreement among multiple authors. The first paragraph starts by naming the author of the essay, W. Burlette Carter, and uses "she" to refer to said author. The following paragraph then begins with "One scholar claims" (disregarding for a moment the bias-introducing synonym of "said"), and refers to that scholar as "they," still citing the same source as if it had come from a different author entirely.

Under the sub-heading "Primary rationales of sex-separation," there are multiple instances of possible bias in the language used. The sentence, "Others argue that safety and privacy were the two main goals of sex-separation (although factors such as morality also played roles),[2]:228, 278, 288–89" defines the support for this statement as plural, yet only references a single source (the same one from before). The following sentence appears to be an attempt to explain the previous statement, but gives a singular example without citation and does not have clear relation to the claim (while the example cites complaints of sexual harassment, there is no clarification of whether the harassment was specifically related to restroom usage, nor was it clear that the factory inspectors' recommendations were implemented). The following sentences appeared to be a continuation of possible reasons for the introduction of sex-separated public restrooms, but are not clear in their assertions, are missing citations, and use biased language (ie. "Authorities who cared").

The second paragraph under the same sub-heading includes statements of opinion as fact: "On the other hand, while all discrimination has commonalities, the sex-separation within racial groups, even going back to slavery, suggests that the parallel regarding toilets is historically flawed.[2]:243 For example, slave ships were usually separated by sex.[75] This fact suggests that racial segregation in public toilets and sex separation in them may not be as comparable as some suggest." The statement that "sex-separation within racial groups...suggests that the parallel regarding toilets is historically flawed" is not a verifiable fact, as it draws on analysis of the fact "slave ships were usually separated by sex." The third sentence here is attempting to draw a conclusion out of that analysis, presenting it as an objective truth instead of a conclusion someone had reached.

The concluding paragraph under the same sub-heading has similar issues. Saying, "This denial [of sex-separated bathrooms] was a sign of discrimination against based on (sic) race and/or poverty," asserts a conclusion for unattributed analysis, and is not objectively verifiable fact. The concluding sentence of this paragraph additionally seems to be misplaced, as it does not relate to the rest of the paragraph. I might also suggest that the first paragraph of the sub-section "Primary rationales of sex-separation" be separated from the following two, as they appear to be unrelated. The first paragraph details the justification of sex-separation, whereas the following two list criticisms of sex-separation.

The sub-heading "Controversy" does not appear to belong on this page. It presents opinionated criticism of a particular analysis of sex-separation as fact and without citing the source of the conclusions made. Additionally, the section only cites the same questionable source mentioned above, Sexism in the "Bathroom Debates": How Bathrooms Really Became Separated by Sex. If a section is to be devoted to controversies around sex-separated public restrooms, do not exclusively present a single opinion as the sole objective truth.

I'd lastly like to raise additional concerns about the source I've been mentioning. I'm concerned by its disproportionate use on this page and the framing of many of its claims as objectively verifiable facts. In total, this source was referenced 20 times throughout the page, far more than any other. I'm additionally concerned with the circumstances under which it was included, as the citations to the source and the information pertaining to it were all added by the author of that very same source, which presents a conflict of interest in the editing of this page.

I really hope this helps clear up any bias, and hopefully I'll find some way I can be notified of replies. If there's any clarification I need to make, and such, let me know!

--HikariFaith (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, HikariFaith for your detailed analysis. This article has oscillated in one direction and in the other a few times... I agree it would be ideal if we could write it to represent an unbiased view - that's the aim. If there are language issues that you feel lead to a biased, perhaps they can be made more neutral just with some copy edits? It would be good to find more and varied references but I believe not very much has been published on this subject? Do you have other references at hand that could be used? Pinging @User:Olliemae. EMsmile (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any. I actually came in here looking for a history of communal restroom stalls when I found this. I was trying to figure out why we prioritize stalled multi-user public restrooms over more private and sometimes more space efficient single-user restrooms. What I did find here was that sex-separated facilities appear to have come about as a way to protect Victorian standards of modesty, as well as to avoid granting women equal access to restrooms in the workplace, thus the workplace, by capitalizing on the lack of accommodations for women in early public restrooms intended for men as both a justification for and a means of sexual harassment and gender discrimination. --HikariFaith (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yea, it's hard to find good references for all this. A year or so ago, the article was probably biased in the other direction (not sure if you have read the discussions above?). If you have spotted wording of bias with "they", "some authors" or things like that, please help with copy editing to make it neutral and objective. Have you also looked at the article on public toilet? And I assume the multi-user public toilets are cheaper to build than single-user restrooms, e.g. less piping required because not so many separate sinks. But this is just my guess. Sometimes I wonder if multi-user toilets are also safer for vulnerable people, e.g. if you were to get assualted in a cubicle, your cries might be heard by other users who could jump over the divider to help but not if it's a completely separate room with a proper door. Also if the door is stuck and you are a child, you can crawl under the divider. etc. EMsmile (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Good day. This is Olliemae. I write to respond to the questions/issues posed in the first post above from HikariFaith. The factual evidence is very clear that, historically, unisex multi-use toilets were not the norm in the west, irrespective of numerous prior historical and nonhistorical articles that said to the contrary (or media that simply repeated those claims). After so much misinformation, I recognize that this fact may be difficult for people to accept. I get that. But facts are facts. The factual evidence is that sex separated multi-use toilets were the norm prior to the 19th century. The evidence is, frankly, overwhelming. That factual evidence is cited in the article that you mention as a single source, the Carter article. We should focus on the facts, not on the number of people taking one side or the other. Those proposing changes need to read the challenged article first. Compare the sources there to those in the other articles you mention. The Wikipedia article is actually biased in the direction of those who continue to argue that unisex public toilets always existed in the west and were the norm. It makes the matter appear as if it is a real factual debate. However, that approach was taken in order to not completely eliminate the other side's arguments. (Neutrality?). It was done to provide balance. (Neutrality?) Those decisions make the article less factual historically. But they leave room for the other sources to continue to be considered and for the debate to continue. If the article were factually treated, the claims that unisex public toilets in multiuse spaces were the norm would have to be conceded as debunked by the facts. The evidence is less clear with single stall toilets. Because some spaces had only one toilet, single stall toilets DO have a substantial unisex history. Later people began to add sex separation for those too. That trend is being reversed in many places now. But unisex was not the standard multi-stall toilets in the West. From your comments, it does not appear that you read the challenged article. You might do that before criticizing the use of the source. Wikipedia should not cite a view as dominant merely because of numbers of people have held it. Most people once thought the world was flat. Perhaps some people still insist that it is.

I also note that the historical articles taking the alternative view were all written before the source you have challenge. The article you challenged is the latest and best source both in terms of citing broader evidence and in terms of date.

I am the author of the article that troubles you. You raise a question about the publishing journal, referring to it in a negative way as student edited and as a journal apparently run by students. You suggest that these points might discredit the article. Let me explain.

First, the Journal is run by Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, USA. I suspect you have heard of that University. It is often designated as one of the leading universities in the US.

Second, in the US, the top legal journals are ALL student-edited. What that means is that a board of the school's top law students are assigned to check every single citation in the article and make sure that it supports the view that it espouses to support. They go line by line. They also read related articles to see if the article being reviewed is challenged. In this case the students read the works you prefer and others. (Note that that the Kogan article, a key article that espoused the theory that communal toilets were the standard, is directly cited in the challenged piece.) They check for plagiarism. They are supervised by professors in this effort. This process takes months. Only after an article has been checked at least twice does it go to press. The students also conform the article to the journal's style. It is tedious work for the author and the students. This article went through at least five checks because of its controversial topic, the fact that it challenged longstanding views, and some students' feelings that it debunked theories to which they were emotionally and politically wedded. I had to provide the students with a copy of every historical source that I cited that was not available, including the ones from early France. Because of the work's controversial nature, I believe, at least one possibly two professors reviewed the work as well. Thus, you can be far more confident that the sources in an article of this type are reliable than in even most US law reviews that undergo such editing. The sources I cite indisputably disprove the earlier theories about the history of sex separation in bathrooms. I note that the historical article originally cited in this piece (that proposed the theory that sex separation emerged as a norm in the nineteenth century), the Kogan article, appeared in a book. That is the one the Wikipedia article presented primarily as posing the other view.The other articles supporting the view are not truly historical. But a book does not undergo such thorough checking as did my article. The author writes it and the editor reads it for clarity, obvious error, and emphasis and fit in the overall book's predetermined scheme. While a writer may voluntarily have students check, no outside group checks sources one by one. The other sources appearing in books and magazines also are not subject to rigorous historical vetting.

There are later articles that follow up on the Kogan article's original premise. Kogan himself wrote several. But they appear in the same type of student-edited journals as does the source you challenge. Note that in each case, unless there is an obvious contrary source, the student editors check only the sources that the author cites. When Kogan wrote his article, my article did not exist. In my article, I cited new sources that disproved the other theory--and the students checking my piece checked the new sources with knowledge of those prior works by Kogan and others. Indeed, if one objects to student-edited law reviews, then one should support a sweep of Wikipedia articles to take out ALL articles cited to student edited law reviews. One would have quite a task ahead.

A fact is not determined by the number of articles that cite to it. Indeed, there is usually one key article that makes a key point and others merely piggy back on that. They don't tend to offer new evidence.

You note the use of anonymous text references or use of "they" when only one source is cited or failure to point out a single source supports a viewpoint. As I recall, some of your colleagues here on Wikipedia objected to my name being mentioned so frequently in the article. (In my view, that was not an objective criticism. There was no such objection when Kogan's name was previously mentioned repeatedly in prior versions and a contrary view was never mentioned.) So they replaced the references to my specific name or the specific article with other words, making it appear that different people were saying the points when the source was one article. I considered that to be introducing a bias too--against the piece. The edits were too focused upon WHO wrote it or minimizing the source and were not enough focused upon reporting the facts in the source whatever they may be and whereever they appear. I am quite certain one can find numerous Wikipedia articles that make multiple references to a work as the best source on a point. To be clear, the article was academic scholarship and I did not receive compensation for it when I wrote it as a law professor (except my usual salary) and I do not now. It is available for free to the public in various locations. But again, the focus of these editors was apparently upon how many times a name is mentioned, whether the facts justify it or not. That has nothing to do with neutrality. Indeed, I note the article has no problem citing companies that support unisex toilets, but leaves out those who oppose or narrowly couches their views. That is not neutrality. Each time Wikipedia cites a company or advocacy organization, it helps that organization or company get or attract money. I have objected to this practice as biased.

The challenged article has been out since early 2019. Yale cites it as published in 2019. It was submitted finally in late 2018. In the 1-2 years since, I know of no one who has claimed in any published work that facts in recounting the history are not incorrect. Do you? Triggered by your question, I just did a search of US Law Reviews. I see two articles that still offer the view you espouse. Inevitably, both have had to also cite my article as the contrary view. They don't deny the facts. They try to argue different facts that, frankly, are already included in the Wikipedia article as it stands. That "two views" approach is consistent with Wikipedia's approach here. Those law review articles have to cite the piece because the work simply is the best and latest source on various points and clearly contrary to earlier ones. Those articles presented no new historical facts. Zero. I have also communicated directly to Prof. Kogan by email. In early 2019, I sent him a copy of the article. He already had read it. I won't repeat our conversation here, but I can say nothing said challenged my facts and, as I understand him, he continues to believe single sex toilets have the unisex history. (My view is that his article, however, did not clearly apply to single sex toilets only and certainly was more widely used to apply to multi use spaces.) No one has debunked the facts I present.

As for your point about comparing racial segregation and sex segregation, note that originally the piece openly compared racial segregation to sex segregation or separation as an argument to support unisex toilets. Also, in briefs before courts in the US advocates have made these comparisons repeatedly. So, given the comparison that was already in the original article to suggest a comparison was proper, the distinction between race and sex separation was added for balance and neutrality. These comparisons are particularly significant to the United States with its unique African American slavery and segregation history. If others with a different country history want to present different perspectives, they should do so in those sections. But as I recall, those statements were added to provide balance and neutrality at a time when the article lacked both even moreso than now.

After a gazillion edits by a host of people, I think the article suffers from grammatical issues, some repetition, and efforts to favor companies and advocacy groups by giving them a shout-out. Knowing a great deal about the evidence out there, I think it remains biased in favor of arguments supporting unisex spaces but it is far better than it was. Simple grammar should be fixed. But my view is that is not reasonable to think it could be made objective or neutral given the strong feelings about its subject matter. Neutrality is in the eyes of the beholder. But please read the challenged article.

Thank you for your comments.Olliemae (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Olliemae I note that I came back to make a few typo corrections and add a few words for clarification in the above comments but it is essentially the same note. Thank you.Olliemae (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am just pinging here User:HikariFaith in case you didn't see the detailed response of Olliemae above. EMsmile (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, That was my bad I really shouldn't have gotten into this when I did (currently trying to finish up my semester at my university and I've been busy for the last several weeks, during which this was an unnecessary distraction at the time). I did see the detailed response and can definitely speak a little bit to it now.

It was never my intention, Olliemae, to say every claim that cites that particular source was wrong, but it was hard to gauge its credibility as it was the only source for a significant portion of the page. It's impossible for any one person to be entirely without bias, so when constructing an informational page, it's best to pull from multiple sources to ensure you're not giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. I don't disagree that gendered bathrooms have been around for a long time, as women weren't considered active members of society even before the Victorian era, and thus public bathrooms were constructed specifically for men, yet considered 'unisex' in doing so for not having a particularly-assigned gender to them (because men were the only ones using them, men's bathrooms were just bathrooms). The issue I do bring up repeatedly is the citation of that one source for things that probably should have cited other things. The example you gave about contractors reporting complaints by women of sexual harassment in bathrooms, for example, would have been better supported with a citation of a source focusing on the reports they filled out. Or, if those reports were published as a public contemporary document, cite that. As I see it, this makes the difference between, for example, citing an apple pie recipe versus an encyclopedia of apples when asserting that apples come in colors other than red. Both may talk about what color apples are, but only one is devoted to the purpose for which you cited it: describing what apples look like (and must I say, if an encyclopedia of apples exists, I'd be impressed).

Regarding the journal in which the source was published. My apologies, I never intended to come across as attacking the source, I was only bringing up concerns that it may not be considered credible under Wiki's policies, as I couldn't find any information verifying that it was peer-reviewed, nor am I knowledgeable on how most law reviews are written. Also, being the only source I could find making those same claims, it does call into question the amount of space given to those claims in the Wiki page, as Wikipedia warns against devoting too much space to "fringe theories." Even though I may agree with you here on when gendered bathrooms came around, there are multiple other sources that appear to give a different history, so it may be best to stay cautious and not give the claims made by your source space that may be undue. Just because it hasn't been challenged or debunked, doesn't mean it will never be. My goal here isn't to challenge these claims, but make sure they're properly supported so as to prevent bias in their presentation. Neutrality is not giving the same weight to every opinion, it's giving weight that is proportional to how well-supported and how generally-accepted they are. I do understand that this is a fringe subject not many people write about, so it's hard to discern who the "majority" is, but as a new argument it would be hard to consider it prominent enough to be the majority opinion, at least right now. If a couple sources have already cited it, that's good, as it does lend credence to you, but it neither renders your claims indisputable nor the best source. While it does deserve mention as a new and challenging opinion, this does not warrant assertion as the ultimate truth of the matter.

I noticed during much of your response you appeared to be interpreting my original comments as an attack on you or your character, which was not my intention. Not only am I a new user here on Wikipedia (my account was created the same day as my first post in here), but I also have no knowledge of who you are, aside from being the author of the source in question. I have no intention of being combative or unreasonably argumentative, and only wished to express concern over the manner in which this Wiki page was constructed, as I was coming in with no distinct knowledge of the individual sources in here and was hoping to receive an explanation from an unopinionated source on the justification for the number of citations given to that single reference.

Moving on to the section about comparisons between sex and racial segregation, this is the one place I would like to challenge what's in the Wiki page. Having read through it an additional time with fresh eyes, I've been able to better evaluate what made me concerned. My concern starts with this statement: "the sex-separation within racial groups, even going back to slavery, suggests that the parallel regarding toilets is historically flawed." This is a straw man fallacy. The claim here, as I understand it, is that because racially segregated people were sex-segregated, too, sex segregation is not the same as racial segregation. I will say as a side note that the same claim can be made vice-versa. Racial segregation is not the same as sex segregation, under this logic, because sex-segregated people were racially segregated, too. In challenging this, I call upon the idea of intersectionality, which describes the compounding nature of different sets of socioeconomic and political hierarchies. So a black woman might face more structural oppression than a black man or a white woman might. I say might, here, because there are a lot more factors involved that could determine whether this is true on the individual scale. Thus, while two particular constructs considered oppressive may have some overlap in who they apply to, that does not justify asserting them as incomparable. If you need more clarification on this, I can certainly answer any further questions you have.

Closing up, be sure to read the Wiki page on neutrality linked above, as it does include some of the things I've said throughout my comments if you would like the additional input. Again, I'm not doing any of this to call you out, attack your credibility, or push an agenda, I'm only verifying that what's here is what belongs in here. HikariFaith (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, HikariFaith, thanks for your explanation. I suggest that if you have time you gently make those edits that could - in your view - reduce bias in the language. Please use the comments in the edit summaries when you save your changes so it's easy to understand what was changed and why. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Explanation about "segregation"

Hi User:Mathglot. You recently removed this sentence as it was unsourced: " "Segregation" is a term that has long been associated with racial segregation in the United States" I think it should stay because it clarifies the issue about terminology controversies in the US. Does the sentence really need a reference or could it be regarded as "common knowledge"? If it needs a reference then a quick Google search would probably bring something up (I haven't looked yet). EMsmile (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It is common knowledge, but it is WP:SYNTH to include it, because it has no relevance to this article. The statement, " Segregation is a term that has long been associated with racial segregation in the United States" is a true statement. It just has no bearing on this article. Putting it another way: it's PoV to include it, implying, without any source, that there is something relevant about making that statement here, in this article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I had added the sentence a while ago was to explain why the term "sex segregation" for public toilets is problematic (in the US), whereas the term "sex separation" is neutral. I had long discussions with another editor about it (User:Olliemae but a reference that says this exactly in those words has not yet turned up. I'll try to investigate further. EMsmile (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Parents wishing to accompany one or more of their young children into the bathroom.

Why would the parents want to accompany one or more of their young children to the bathroom? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

to help them wipe their bottom for example (for children less than 4 years old). EMsmile (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed new content about sinks

I have cut out the recently added content about sinks because I don't think it's entirely suitable. It is missing references, is too detailed and reads more like an essay. Perhaps in a compressed form, it would fit better in the article on public toilet. But it would require more references.

++++ The apparent hesitance to place sinks in each toilet fixture cubicle may come from building code mandated or designer, investor preferred sink to toilet fixture, urinal ratios, as well as cost saving ease of plumbing with sinks installed in an open arrangement, and perceived or true space savings. The space savings of open arrangement placement of sinks versus sinks in each toilet cubicle start to be realized only with more than half a dozen of toilet fixtures in one toilet room, even with the reduced sink to toilet fixture ratio in an open arrangement. A small cluster of individual toilet cubicles with sinks will take the same amount of space as a single toilet room with equal amount of toilet fixtures.

While some European jurisdiction mandate about 1:1 sink to toilet, urinal fixture ratios, in North America many jurisdictions require a lower, 1:2 sink to toilet fixture ratio. With COVID-19 pandemic, and the role public spaces play in infectious disease transmission, it may be useful to look in detail at the functionality of sinks and toilet fixtures, to arrive at the optimum sink to toilet fixture ratio.

The sink is mostly used for hand washing, although washing other body parts (face, teeth after a restaurant meal etc.) is also not uncommon. Mirror conventionally placed over the sink, and described by some building codes, encourages using it for grooming. To prevent spread of disease, proper hand washing should include wetting, lathering with soap and 20 seconds of hands scrubbing, as recommended by the CDC, followed by thorough rinsing and drying, the recommended time of which is 20 to 30 seconds. With soap application and tap activation and inactivation (either by turning it on or off, or placing hands by the sensor) the total time for proper hand washing is 30 to 40 seconds minimum, and likely more.

Most people urinate between six to seven times a day. With plenty of drink it is not abnormal to urinate 10 times a day. Mammals, regardless of species, empty their bladders within 21 seconds (plus/minus 13 seconds). 50% of healthy people defecate once a day, with some once every 3 days and some twice a day. An average bowel movement of a mammal takes 12 seconds, but some people may spend a little bit of time on a toilet before. Menstruating individuals require about 30 seconds for sanitary napkins/ tampons and feminine wipes use and disposal. Considering above, people on average spent no more than 30 to 40 seconds using the toilet fixture or urinal, including wiping, flushing, undressing and dressing.

It appears that the best practice for sinks to toilet fixtures design ratio in public toilets should be at or above 1:1, which would allow for individual unisex toilet cubicles containing both a toilet fixture and a sink.

While locating the sinks in a common space of a toilet room may cut the time spent in a que, should one form, to access a toilet fixture in a cubicle, placing a door between the toilet fixture and a sink ensures the user must come in contact by touch with contaminants left on a door knob by previous users. This is especially true of the recently more popular cubicles with full height walls, and full height doors operated by knobs or levers requiring full hand grasp, as opposed to traditional toilet partitions. It is valid to question if this is an arrangement that should be recommended as the best practice design, considering fecal-oral route of infection is common in many serious diseases, including SARS, and SARS-CoV-2.

++++ EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, that was too long and detailed for this article, and also lacked enough sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Archiving?

Almost 3 years ago (see above), Carbon Caryatid suggested archiving this talk page. EMsmile, "not a big fan of archiving", politely opposed, as the page wasn't unduly long. Mathglot agreed with EMsmile, and CC withdrew the proposal. Since then, we've had a number of wordy discussions, and the talk page has more than quadrupled in length: I think it may be time to revisit the issue. I would vote for archiving (with, say, a 2-year delay). Eric Pode lives (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As it's a slow-moving page, I still don't feel it's urgent, but with a 2-year delay, I don't have an objection; that would archive roughly half the page. Given how slow it is, as an alternative to auto-archiving you could just manually archive the threads you don't think are worth displaying now. It could be some older ones (like a page move?) could be worth keeping, I dunno. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

yea, that's all fine by me. No objections to archiving. :-) EMsmile (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you: that seems to be a general, if qualified, consensus for archiving, but I won't do anything for a few days in case of further comments. I have to say, I prefer auto-archiving, simply because it means that no-one has to keep monitoring the situation, and no-one has to make a subjective decision about relative importance and whether an issue has reached final resolution or not. The argument against archiving in general, of course, is that a newcomer to the page may not realise that the issue they raise has been already discussed at length – but that's also true if the Talk page is too long for quick perusal, which I feel is currently the case here. I've seen cases on other pages in which a bot auto-archiving a discussion after a year or two of silence prompts an editor into realising that they don't consider the issue resolved, and into opening a fresh conversation with new participants – and I think that can be a healthy thing. Eric Pode lives (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and for reviving my proposal to archive. No objections: manual or automatic. The article is looking so much better than when I first stumbled across it. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

OK: I've now set up auto-archiving. If anyone wants to change the details, feel free. Eric Pode lives (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reikosimmons.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)