Talk:Nasty Woman Movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

small point: word consistency
Decide as a group the best term, based on popular use, for Nasty Woman or Nasty Women. There's some inconsistency across your sections. If you see others using both, you should use the term of their choice when directly discussing them, but on the page, when it's your language/description, choose a consistent phrase. I would recommend describing this decision, or even having the conversation on the Talk Page, so that future editors who come along will be able to practice your protocol. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, capitalizing Movement makes it function as a proper noun, but I thought you told me in Monday's class it was a term you had made up. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, what do you mean by "democratic women" in the first section? If you're trying to refer to Democrats as a political party, it should be capitalized. But are all women embracing the term Democrats?Aschuet1 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

what should we title this article?
Ok, so, I found a source, The Washington Times, that found a name for the "movement." It actually called it the "'Nasty Women' moniker." I tried looking for sources that labeled it as the Nasty Woman Movement, but I only found a Facebook page with a mere 200 followers. I think using "moniker" would help us from distinguishing it as a movement which might stray into original research type problems. Also, I think the movement itself is really a stem of the women's movement and the resistance movement. "Nasty Woman" seems more like, as the Washington Times describes, a "barb... [that] has injected new vigor into Democrats' appeal to women to rally" (Wolfgang). Does this sound like a way we might want to look at the "movement?" Willowwalsh (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 (talk • contribs)
 * Update: I found a source (Scambler, Sasha. "The Rise of the Nasty Women – Reclaiming the Feminist Collective." Cost Of Living. Cost of Living, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 18 Apr. 2017) that calls the movement a movement.Willowwalsh (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Summary
Here is a list of things to consider (taken from the peer reviews):


 * adding pictures (what does the shirt look like? the book?)


 * what are the "works" in the book? Are they short stories?


 * take out the "Overview" label


 * watch out for contradictory info from section to section (not sure what this meant; maybe it's the woman vs. women)


 * use less Huffington Post sources/ use more from other sources to balance it out


 * woman vs. women


 * inconsistency in capitalizing "Nasty Woman" vs. "nasty woman"


 * the overview should go more in-depth


 * reword in first line in the overview (that's my bad, I need to work on my effective summarizing skills)Willowwalsh (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * some sections seem lacking/ not filled out enough


 * sources 12 and 19 were a problem in some way


 * the pop culture section is a reiteration of the partnerships section (Is it because we mentioned the book twice?)


 * more context is needed (this could apply to the overview and origin people)


 * being mindful of our tone (they didn't give specific examples)


 * what was the overall reception like? What was on the NastyWoman hashtag?


 * when was the Nasty Woman book written?

Again, this is just summarized list of what the peer reviews had to say.

Willowwalsh (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Page move
Hi everyone! It looks like someone else moved the page before I could. I was going to merge this in with the entry for the phrase itself, but I'm going to hold off for a while since the two may have enough coverage to justify separate articles from one another. I figure that I'm going to wait and see how others react. Merging is still an option, but I think I'm going to leave it for right now. I did, however, remove the quotation marks since those typically aren't used on article titles on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - forgot to log out of my other account! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder about asking editors on the talk page of Nasty Woman. To me it makes sense to merge them, but maybe they have a specific vision for that page. At the very least this page should direct readers to the phrase page. I'll go ahead and add that for now. Aschuet1 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind! You had already linked to it! 17:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Remarks to better blend in with Wikipedian best practices
I just discovered this article via the Trump protests sidebar, and noticed from talk page comments that it's part of a WikiEd class. Congrats to students and teacher for that work! I have a few remarks you may want to consider:
 * If the article title was indeed "made up" in class, you should check if there is a frequently-used term describing this movement in reliable sources, typically in newspapers reporting on it. This term should then become the common name and article title.
 * The students did talk about this a lot. Willow got the closest to finding a reliable source that called it the 'Nasty Woman' Movement but it's not a newspaper, so not in the mainstream. Perhaps that's not enough then for Wikipedia. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a strong overlap with the Nasty woman article: you should suggest a merge and engage with editors of this pre-existing article.
 * I'd love to see a merge. My students have completed the course, but I will ask any of them if they want to pursue this with the editors of the other page, and I will post something to their talk page in case the other editors want to take the initiative. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The talk page should have an informative banner mentioning the WikiEd course assignment. The relevant template is Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment, which you can fill in with the appropriate details such as "term", "assignment", "reviewers", etc. Unfortunately the parameters are not documented…
 * I added the template. Not sure if you wanted to me to also identify the specific course, which is New Literacies, Cultures and Technologies of Writing. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, — JFG talk 21:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd been debating whether or not it should be merged, honestly. In any case, the debate was whether or not it should be titled "Nasty woman" or "Nasty woman movement" since the phrase had since turned into a movement. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

archive of initial editors discussing how to build the article
I'm archiving the initial comments by editors from New Literacies, Cultures, and Technologies of Writing as they discussed how to start this article. Aschuet1 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reception: Celebrities such as Katy Perry, Will Ferrell, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus have all publicly worn a "Nasty Woman" t-shirt in support of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and writers for sites such as the Huffington Post have voiced their support for the Nasty Women Project and themselves claim themselves as "nasty women." Elizabeth Warren used the "nasty woman" quote as a call to vote against Trump on on election day. The reclaiming of the title "nasty woman" has been viewed in a mostly favorable way by the political left, while some right wing sources and groups take issue with the Women's March and "nasty women."

I have found a lot of articles about people responding to the the "nasty woman" comments on Twitter, but so far I haven't found very much about general support of the Nasty Woman Project. Brittabarre (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the Nasty Women project keeps a list of their interviews and article features on their website? I'll check on that and see what I can find. Willowwalsh (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC) I've been low-key classifying our sources on the bottom of the google doc, so we can get an idea, as a group, of which sources would be beneficial under which subheadings. *Subject to change* The good thing is that, with our existing sources, we have at least two sources for each subheading. As you can see (on the google doc), pop culture has way more sources, specifically art exhibition sources. I don't know if this would suggest that we should alter our current headings or just dig deeper to fill out the rest of the sections. Willowwalsh (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My overview is kind of a skeleton, because I want to get an idea of the order of everything, so it seems like a logical flow from one topic to the next. If the way I order things is different from how it's ordered in the article, it probably will seem weaker, so I'll be adjusting it as we go on.Willowwalsh (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)