Talk:Nevertheless, she persisted

Inappropriate removal of cleanup/trivia/verifycredibility tags

 * 1) Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme.
 * 2) Not every article needs a "in popular culture" section.
 * 3) BuzzFeed is about as reliable as the Daily Mail.
 * 4) If there was a tag to point out WP:NOT issues, I'd slap that on the article, as well.

KMF (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme — Agreed. However, this political catchphrase has been discussed as a meme in reliable sources such as The Atlantic and The New York Times, and fits the definition of Meme. The word meme has transitioned from a neologism to a word found in Merriam-Webster. (Unlike French, where the Académie française decides matters of language, the English language absorbs new words, and its structures are determined by usage rather than prescribed by a language authority.) You may be slightly behind Merriam-Webster in this regard.
 * Point taken. But these particular items are more evidence of the viral nature of the meme. I'm ambivalent about this material, but is it really doing any harm?
 * Yes, BuzzFeed is less reliable than other sources. In this instance, it is one of 27 sources, and its reporting is consistent with other sources.
 * Can't help you with the dearth of tags to slap upon articles. Sorry.
 * , I do appreciate your taking your objections to this talk page for discussion, rather than engaging in an edit war. Thanks for the civil discourse. Cheers! —Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW re #3, per a recent discussion at the RS noticeboard (sorry don't have the link), BuzzFeed has actually stepped up its game quite a bit in the news department -- decided to make a legit news department and put resources into it, hired experienced real reporters and all. I was surprised to hear this, but apparently it is true. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * O RLY? KMF (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's true; a little bird told me. Herostratus (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many pics
There are currently, approximately 7-8 pictures on here. Does anyone else think this is too much?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I removed a few, trying to find a balance between text and images. Cbeers! --Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of term "meme"
The word 'meme' is used a lot in this article. It seems to me that it would be better served using the word 'slogan' or 'motto', which are standard English words for exactly what 'Nevertheless, she persisted' is, is more precise, since 'meme' also covers non text ideas, such as ideas, sounds, etc, and since the words are older they are less likely to change in meaning. Meme is relatively new as a mainstream word and is already different from its original meaning. Ashmoo (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reluctance to use a new term such as "meme". I've revised the content, using the term only when it is specifically used in the quoted reliable sources, the NYT and Atlantic (magazine). Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nevertheless, she persisted. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20170805222501/https://lincolnabraham.com/wiki/mary-todd-pension-her-fight-against-the-government-introduction/ to https://lincolnabraham.com/wiki/mary-todd-pension-her-fight-against-the-government-introduction/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not happy with the use of "silence" in the first paragraph (only)
Full disclosure, I personally am an Elizabeth Warren fan and I think this thing she did was great. But as you know we have to put that aside. I'm not happy with the word "silenced" in the first paragraph of the lede, where its used twice:

Apparently there's been some back-and-forth on this, discussed in edit summaries. Let's air it out a bit more here. My objections are:
 * 1) It's not really NPOV. It's not horrible, but its not the most NPOV term we could use.
 * 2) There's a bit of a possible implication that she was physically gagged, that some people might take. Not many, but remember we are also serving ESL readers who aren't coming from an Anglosphere cultural background. If it's confusing to 1% of readers... let's see, article's getting... shuffle shuffle... 900 views a day, and 1% of that is 9, which which is small but not nothing. And yes I get that reading further into the article will disabuse one of this notion, but the lede is supposed to give the reader a quick and correct overview.
 * 3) And I mean after all, they were using the rule. Remember, I'm a Warren fan and it's a great quote and I think McConnell was probably wrong. But, according to vote of the Senate, she did break the rule. I think it's a key fact that McConnell wasn't just going rogue here and using illegal brute force, which would have been a quite different thing. And "silencing" could kind of give that impression.

(There are 4 uses of "silence" later in the article, and those are fine, I think. The second paragraph of the lede is "The expression went viral as feminists posted it on social media with hashtag references to other women. Its meaning has expanded to refer more broadly to women's persistence in breaking barriers, despite being silenced or ignored." I think that the "silenced" there is probably OK, since it's not about the proximate incident but about how people described it... its not a direct quote but kind a of distillation of what a number of people said. It's not really using the term in our voice. The first paragraph kind of is.)

An editor recently changed the first paragraph to read

but that was rolled back (and fine if it was stable) but... that's maybe going too far the the other and we can find a middle ground. Maybe we could put in that McConnell's invoking the rule was "controversial" or something. What say you? Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the lead needs to represent middle ground. Here's a version that more closely describes the Senate action:
 * This version is more representative of language in sources, and bypasses any need to refer to McConnell's remarks as "controversial".
 * It would maybe be better to also mention Rule 19, but it's an arcane reference that needs a more detailed explication than just a mention... Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would maybe be better to also mention Rule 19, but it's an arcane reference that needs a more detailed explication than just a mention... Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)