Talk:Sikivu Hutchinson

Rewrite of the page proceeding

Just wanted to let people know that I'm planning on doing a full re-write of this page over the next few weeks. I'm going to copy what is here now and "off-line" edit it. I will then paste the page back so it is fresh and new. Any edits that happen during that time (March 7, 2012) lets say May 1st, 2012 will not show when I finish. If there is something major that really needs to be added to the page please post it here, and I'll add it into the rewrite. Thanks! Sgerbic (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

finished with the re-write and am launching it tonight. Enjoy! Sgerbic (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Her criticism of the Center for Inquiry's lack of racial diversity on its board of directors

I just posted this in the article: "In 2016, the atheist Sikivu Hutchinson criticized the merger of the secular organizations Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science which gave Richard Dawkins a seat on the board of directors on the Center for Inquiry. Her criticism was that both organizations had all white board of directors."[1]

I cited the Huffington Post.

This is what Wikipedia says about the Huffington Post: "In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked No. 1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[14] In 2012, The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize."

So I believe I met Wikipedia's requirements for the material to be added.Knox490 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The article currently has "Hutchinson has challenged the lack of racial diversity and attention to institutional racism in the secular and New Atheist movements, and has also critiqued what she perceives to be their fixation on science at the expense of social justice." which I think is sufficient as well as worthy of inclusion. —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:Deb - re: Censorship of the feminist Sikivu Hutchinson

As you are probably aware, one of the problems Wikipedia is trying to lessen is gender bias on Wikipedia.

Sikivu Hutchinson is a feminist within the atheist/skeptical movement. Feminism has been gaining some traction within that movement in the last 10 years or so. As a result, the Me Too Movement has affected the atheist/skeptical movement. However, there has been a great deal of pushback from anti-feminist atheists/skeptics concerning these matters (a significant portion of the pushback has been inappropriate).

David Silverman was dismissed from American Atheists subsequent to sexual harassment allegations. Shortly afterwards, he admitted to acting inappropriate touching another woman and then resigned from Atheist Alliance International.[2][3][4][5]

Please look at this edit for the Sikivu Hutchinson article. This edit completely removes the criticism of David Silverman by Sivivu Hutchinson which is in a reliable source. In addition, it obscures her feminists activism behind a big wall of text rather easily scanable sections so it is less reader friendly.

In addition, please look at this edit of the David Silverman article.

I would rather not get into an edit war with User:Loksmythe who is making these edits. This Wikipedia editor has reverted me twice already. So if you could adjudicate/referee this matter, I would appreciate it.Knox490 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I edit in the subject area and have noticed these additions and reverts so I also commented on a few talk pages. What you're doing is something else: the concern about gender bias on Wikipedia that you mention is about Wikipedia's own diversity including coverage of notable women by writing more articles, etc. It has nothing to do with trying to criticize every atheist at every opportunity... I'm also unaware of any policy similar to WP:PSCI (where pseudoscientific topics must clearly be described as such) that would make mandatory the criticism of every BLP subject in relation to gossip about sexism or marital relationships, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 19:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, in the Anglosphere, there are many atheists who are public figures and publicly advocate atheism such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Phillip Pullman, Dan Barker, etc. I have edited a handful of articles about atheists. So your comment about criticizing "every atheists" is a nonstarter. But even if I did edit every article about atheists, so what if I did this as long as I adhere to Wikipedia's policies. The issue is whether or not Wikipedia policies are being followed in relation to instances I cited above. Please don't get sidetracked into irrelevancies.

Next, the sources I cited in the two Wikipedia articles in question are reliable sources. They are not gossip magazines, etc.Knox490 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And WP:CONSENSUS, WP:WEIGHT are also policy, despite them you restored changes another editor challenged. My comments here were not in relation to the content disputes themselves (there are more than one page involved) but because this is an administrator's talk page and presumably a proper place to discuss policy and behavior (the same reason you initially posted here, I presume). —PaleoNeonate – 00:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should really be taking place on the article's talk page, not here. I understand your concerns but I would just comment that lengthy details of David Silverman's activities belong in the article about him, not in the article about his critic, and vice versa.Deb (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The person reverting me simply reverted me with no discussion on the talk page. How are "revert wars" settled at Wikipedia? I want to know this given the nature of his initial reversion.

And as far as Sikivu Hutchinson's public protestation about Atheist Alliance International (AAI) hiring David Silverman which occurred in a reliable news source, given his very short tenure at that organization, it's apparent he is a controversial figure. The thing that is troubling is that I simply wanted to add a short quote and not lengthy details to Silverman's article about the pushback concerning his hiring by AAI. And yet, I was reverted.

Next, in retrospect, I agree with you about not adding a lot of details to Sikivu Hutchinson's article about Silverman. On the other hand, given Silverman's former prominent stature within the atheist movement (he now call himself a former atheist activist on his Twitter account), would you agree that having a short blurb about her protestation of AAI hiring Silverman is warranted?Knox490 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that a former Wikipedia admin edited the Sikivu Hutchinson article. Namely, the Wikipedia editor User:BrownHairedGirl. Since she may be knowledgeable about Ms. Hutchinson and obviously knows Wikipedia's policies more than the average editor, I will ask for her input on the respective talk pages. I also asked the long time editor User:Sgerbic to comment on the talk pages because she contributed substantially to the Sikivu Hutchinson article.Knox490 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Trying to catch up on what is going on here, kinda confusing. I did a major rewrite of Hutchinson's WP page years ago. I'm not sure what you are asking Knox, are you trying to leave the words of Hutchinson about Silverman on her page, his page or both? Or are you talking about the Center for Inquiry page? Is it's the former here are my thoughts (keeping in mind I clearly could be missing something) Hutchinson's opinion of Silverman do not belong on her own WP page. Should Hutchinson's opinion go on Silverman's WP page? That's more difficult, she is RS but does it add anything constructive to Silverman's page? Is it attacking HIM then that might be a problem because of BLP. Is it drama or gossip? Should we put all of Hutchinson's opinions on every person's page that she finds fault with? Would that be fair to Hutchinson whose opinion might change but it will remain there unchanged on Wikipedia? Personally I would air away from attacking people and focus on pages of people who are clearly quacks and grief vampires. When I write about them, then I cite evidence or experts that have looked at the claims they are making, not ad hominem or drama. There have been several mini dramas in the atheist community with the equivalent of torches and pitchforks whenever someone has been accused by another of something. I'm not a fan of that, and in fact it pretty much has not been allowed on WP until there are serious RS to support it. Like in the case of John of God and Bill Cosby, we can't use one person's comments about them (even if the person is RS) we have to wait until the media starts reporting on it, maybe even until there is a court case. I agree and apologize to Deb as this discussion should not be held here. But this seems to be the place where the discussion is continuing and because it is on several different places, probably why I'm so confused what is being asked. Sgerbic (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I have been asked to get involved in some off wiki endeavors that is going to be taking up my time for awhile. I would appreciate it if you: 1) Got a brief mention of Sikivu Hutchinson's protest of Silverman holding a prominent position at Atheist Alliance International (AAI) at both pages. 2) Restored the more readable/digestible section format that I created at the Sikivu Hutchinson article. Knox490 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait - you aren't asking my opinion of the situation - you are telling me to do the edits to pages that you don't have time for? Yeah - I'll get right on that. Sgerbic (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As you already know there's no consensus to add more of that unnecessary and potentially divisive noise. That she's advocating for more diversity is commendable and that's already mentioned (as I said on the article's talk page). —PaleoNeonate – 14:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)