Talk:Gender pay gap

An edit from Sep 2021 removed two large-scale studies^[1][2] for being "based on self-published and not peer reviewed sources". This sounds reasonable. However, the current introduction to the article states "In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average female's annual salary is 79% of the average male salary, compared to 95% for the adjusted average salary", giving 4 references. To my knowledge, none of the 4 sources for this statement are from peer reviewed sources, and all of them are self-published.

• [2] is from a company called Glassdoor, described by WP as "an American website"
• [3] is a CNN article citing a study from the advocacy group AAUW
• [4] is the exact same study from AAUW, cited a second time
• [5] is from the Society for Human Resource Management, which appears to be a lobbying group (according to the WP page).

Should I remove these sentences, or is it better to add citations to the Payscale and KornFerry studies back?

EDIT: this appears to be a recurrent problem within the article, for example the studies from Morning Star and the NSF in the "Industry sector" section do not seem to have undergone peer-review either.

The above unsigned comment was added by Papazupazuzu, back in 2022. Although they seem to be inactive now, I'm inclined to agree with them, at least partially.

My issue here is not just with peer review, but the notability of the sources.

But the biggest complaint I have is that we have a problem with lede clutter. The article is currently rated as C-class, yet its lede is nearly 350 words long, which is in the upper range of what is advised for an FA-class article, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. There's even a video. This makes the lede uncomfortably cluttered, using less prestigious sources, one of which is arguably unreliable (in the case of Society for Human Resource Management).

My solution was to move these studies to the relevant US sub-section, and to WP:GLOBALIZE the lede with more reliable sources. Yet Avatar317 restored these sources to the lede. I'm open to the suggestion that my edits were partially misguided, and perhaps some of the content I added to the lede should also be removed for de-cluttering. Yet I can't see a reason why these USA sources should stay in the lede, and I also think the video should be moved as well. Have a great day, folks. - Amaebi-uni (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems a little silly to complain about a large lead when your edit added two paragraphs to make it bigger. But anyhow, I do support moving the video to elsewhere in the article, and also moving the paragraph you added: "More recently, other factors (such as the burden of healthcare costs)..." somewhere else in the article.

As a second comment, I think the statement I restored of the example (better sources would be nice) of the difference between non-adjusted and adjusted numbers is valuable to have in the lead; QUANTification is very informative. I would support having the above mentioned paragraph: "More recently, other factors..." in the lead if there were numbers with it. To me the lack of numbers means we have lots of text with little information. Does the sum of these other factors add 0.2% to this gap, or 12%? If it adds <1% it is probably not worth mentioning in the lead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to change it so it is correct and with the current times as it has fallen to be incorrect if we are accounting for current times. Helloitsmeballer (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add more information on the causes of the gender pay gap.

'The BBC faced scrutiny after publishing the salaries of its employees earning at least £150,000 a year, with particular focus on gender disparities^[1]. Female presenters raised concerns about earning significantly less than male counterparts. However, broader data suggests that the BBC's gender pay gap may not reflect the broader labor market. Studies indicate minimal differences in pay between men and women with similar roles and levels within companies. The issue appears to stem more from women being in lower-ranking positions at lower-paying organizations^[2]. Nonetheless, discrepancies at the top levels of organizations, including the BBC, are not uncommon. In Spain and Germany, top-ranking women earn considerably less than their male counterparts, likely because men dominate the upper echelons and work more hours on average. ^[3].

When the gender pay gap is adjusted for jobs at the same level, company and function, it seems like the disparities almost disappear in staff and professional positions, the ones that remain can be explained by the average hours worked and perhaps gender discrimination.^[4]' I also wanted to add the 2 images that my source (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/01/are-women-paid-less-than-men-for-the-same-work, no paywall link: https://archive.is/wM302) uses. Dimmlerthegreat (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The above isn't about the causes of the gender pay gap, per se, it's a factual statement it exists. The images are likely copyrighted and can't be used here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the entire premise of the Gender pay gap inherently flawed since to actually prove that any of the differences in incomes between women and men are rooted in sexism, wouldn't you have to actually isolate all other factors that influence pay?

To come to the conclusion of structural sexism against women would require comparing only men and women

• at the same company
• in exactly the same position
• with exactly the same boss/hiring manager
• with exactly the same experience
• with exactly the same education
• who have negotiated in exactly the same way and/or persist-ency,

would it not? How is this taken into account, and why is there no mention/criticism of these factors? 4TUAhKILR5H2E (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The terms you're looking for are the controlled and uncontrolled pay gaps. Both are structurally meaningful, and Berkely has a study discussing them: Pay Equity — EDGE in Tech at UC

They also need to be correlated with the gender opportunity gap (U.S. Opportunity Gap: Previous Reports | Syndio) -- 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:FDFA:132F:7A8:BD7A (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think your links broke, would you mind fixing them, I'd love to read more on this topic 4TUAhKILR5H2E (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• The article already talks about this (see the discussion of the adjusted vs. non-adjusted figures) although it could probably stand to have a bit more about why the non-adjusted figures matter. But see the last paragraph of the "Discrimination" section (and really, the entire section as a whole) - essentially, the issue is that the non-adjusted figure is intended to capture more structural cultural biases, including things like lower pay for entire fields dominated by women, or job progress lost to the intersection of eg. lacking access to childcare and cultural pressures that result in women having to disproportionately take the career hit to cover that gap. It's not necessarily about individual bosses sitting their in their boss-chair going "I'm gonna pay this woman less!" --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rozalia Luksenburg: Hello! I see you are new to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, in which many people contribute to each article. It would be helpful if you did multiple smaller edits rather than one large edits; that makes it is easier for others to leave your good edits and revert your controversial/disputed ones, as well as it making it easier for others to follow what you are doing. I recommend you make deletions separately to additions, justifying each deletion, and re-organizations separately as well. This way any discussion on a reversion can more clearly discuss the problem, rather then the difficulty of having to discuss which part of a large edit was the problem part.

It looks to me like some of your changes are helpful and properly sourced, but it was hard to follow in such a huge change, and you gave no reason for removing lots of sourced content.

Thanks!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we need a NEW section in which the content you added goes, withOUT deleting any of the current content. That could be an option also. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 8 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seniidev9ne (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Seniidev9ne (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 13 January 2026 and 9 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rini026, WikiSeeker04 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 27MMD (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Capitalization changes and extra punctuation removals on 3 titles under the "Causes" chapter ("Sexual Harassment:" -> "Sexual harassment", "Glass Ceilings:" -> "Glass ceilings", "Negotiation Expectations and Backlash" -> "Negotiation expectations and backlash") Kontrolcu (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 14:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)