Talk:Rebecca Watson/Archive 1

Notability
As well as being the founder of Skepchick, a co-host on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and a winner of the PRTQ, Rebecca Watson has been mentioned in several dead-tree media articles:

Articles about Rebecca Watson:

Articles mentioning Rebecca Watson:

Ole Eivind (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Skepchick
Make sure you mention the nude calendar :) Mindme (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done =) Ole Eivind (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very tastefully done. Mindme (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaker for Various Randi Adventures
This would also help with notability is a listing of the various JREF events she's been an invited speaker. Mindme (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would an "other appearances" section be good? Ole Eivind (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've googled a bit, and so far I've only found her talk at TAM 5.5 (and her TAM 5 paper). Are there others?
 * We also have her lecture for the NYC Skeptics, The Tank Vodcast and her interview for an upcoming documentary by Gregory Walsh. Is this enough to add a new section, or should it just be added to the external links section? Ole Eivind (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and she was on the "Next Generation of Humanism" panel at the New Humanism conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 20-22. link. Ole Eivind (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
I've requested that the article be moved to Rebecca Watson, which is currently a redirect to the SGU article. Ole Eivind (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image
Seems to be a bit of a revert war going on the image. The original is fine. Her tshirt communicates something important about her views. It is not just a "joke" tshirt. It might be akin to cropping out Abbie Hoffman's flag shirt claiming his shirt is just a joke. Mindme (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have already discussed this with the person doing the cropping on his Wikimedia Commons user talk page. Unfortunately he is insistent. I have reverted twice, but won't be pushed into a third. Not sure what other measures can be taken. He appears to be winning in his efforts to discourage editors of this article.MArcane (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of my own curiosity, how do you revert a picture? I have no clue. ---Brendan White (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics in the Pub lecture
I undid revision 285922166 by Damiens.rf. His revision was removing Watson's lecture for London SitP from the Speaking Engagements section. His description was "rv advertisement of obscure event". I undid his revision since:
 * The Skeptics in the Pub lecture series is a well known event that has been going on since 1999, and has featured numerous notable speakers. Just to name a few: Jon Ronson, Ben Goldacre, Phil Plait, Simon Singh...
 * It's so popular that it has inspired similar events in other countries.
 * The event is partly run by The Skeptic (UK magazine) which seems to be notable enough to have their own article.
 * Being flown from the US to speak in the UK is obviously worth noting among the other speaking engangements Damiens.rf didn't deem unimportant enough to remove.

Ole Eivind (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

infected
seems like there's an exploit in wiki. The page looks different from the edited code.Or am I hallucinating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.141.119 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything. Can you explain what you see? Could it just be that the beginning of the code is for the infobox and the actual text of the article doesn't start until further down in the editing box? --Icarus (Hi!) 02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be a bug in Wiki. I'm getting this in the info box, then it reverts back when I refresh: Cory Rebecca Watson 80.jpg Background information Born 	June 28 1999 (age 10 Halifax,Canada Spouse(s) 	Sid Rodrigues Internet activity Web alias(es) 	The Skepchick Period active 	2005 - Present Subjects 	Official site


 * Might be time to run do some housekeeping on your system. I seen nothing of the sort here. --Krelnik (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Skepchick: Origins
The references regarding the founding of Skepchick and the launch of Skepchick Magazine are broken or something is messed up in the wayback machine. I'm having trouble finding any replacements that aren't merely copies of the paragraph in this Wikipedia entry. Little help? comment added by Schaef (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "Skepchick" was originally used by Sheila Gibson in 1999 or earlier, when she was "chairchick" of the New England Skeptical Society and created the first Skepchicks calendar in 1999, which is still online at http://www.magicdave.com/sccal/skepchicks.htm


 * Gibson used the term and referred to the calendar in an October 1999 article for NESS, lamenting the scarcity of females in skepticism. That article, titled "Where the Girls Aren't," is still on the NESS website: http://www.theness.com/index.php/where-the-girls-arent/


 * Gibson's role in the creation of the concept and term should be acknowledged. Lippard (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Elevatorgate
People are going to be fighting over the wording of elevatorgate until someone locks it, or whatever it is that wiki-masters do to end these sorts of fights. The summary should be unbiased. That is the goal. It should not have an agenda, and it should be brief. It is a significant event, however, so it should have som substance. (If you go to google trends and search 'skepchick,' the organization was hardly even on the charts until elevatorgate. Additionally, 'elevatorgate' is a significant term. It is what it is known as. Not 'elevator incident.' It deserves its own section, considering this is what made her famous relative to her relatively very marginal internet fame prior to elevatorgate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's about WP:Verifiability. Find a solid third-party account that establishes the term as notable. A hashtag and a few blogs don't cut it. As is, there is an over-reliance on primary sources.Novangelis (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I hope that my wording will make people less inclined to make any more major changes. I tried to cover it properly, to be even-handed and to properly back it up with references, so that there would be less possibilities to find fault in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The word 'elevatorgate' is not contentious material. And if you're going to consider 'elevatorgate' as a term to be unotable because it hasn't been published in a newspaper or a book, you'll have to forget about not only the entire elevatorgate event, but half her page as well. Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, "-gate" is considered a Contentious label.Novangelis (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think there needs to be more to back up the use of "elevatorgate"... Try googleing it--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Google is not a reliable source. There are a variety of terms used in blogs, also not reliable sources, but none have been picked up by a reliable source to date. It is not the job here to establish one here. Flash in the pan events (which this still may turn out to be) are subject to WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Novangelis (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously saying, that you believe I was suggesting google as a source? Where has this incident been covered? The same kind of places, as where it's been called elevatorgate ...and if you won't accept them as reliable sources... Why? This isn't about what is scientifically true about the genes of a ostrich. It's about what people are commonly calling this incident. What would be better for that, than the blogosphere?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What about a redirect link in the section, that way if someone is searching for 'weingergate' they can find the section but also hve it still say 'incident'?Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable approach. Users currently looking for it will find what they want. Should some public figure get caught in a compromising position in an elevator, and the phrase is stale with respect to this incident (which could be true next month), the redirect is easily diambiguated or reassigned as deemed appropriate. The principle of least astonishment and neutrality in the article (on this matter) are both satisfied. Because they are somewhat transparent, redirects do have more latitude. WP:Redirect offers Attorneygate as an example. I think this fits the pattern to a T.Novangelis (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Make sure to mentio that at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. --damiens.rf 14:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume that this is a general comment about the can of worms that list opened. To make it clear, this will not come anywhere near the criterion "widely recognized", and this article should not be added to the list.Novangelis (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

People are agreed on a redirect link for 'elevatorgate' and keeping the title of the section 'elevator incident,' correct? If so...does anyone know how to make a redirect link? 66.188.228.180 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed overrates my acceptance of the action. I would consider it "ill-advised", but within policy guidelines. That said, the procedure is fairly straight forward.
 * Go to Elevatorgate
 * In the edit window, enter " #REDIRECT Rebecca Watson "
 * Add an informative edit summary; in this case, the policy "WP:RNEUTRAL" is the basis ("represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms").
 * Decide that you believe it will be useful, not just "could be useful, in theory"
 * Save
 * I don't believe it meets criterion #4, but that is my opinion.Novangelis (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User: Robofish is someone in favor of censorship. When one gets into a brouhaha with Richard Dawkins to the extent that many atheists felt they had to "choose sides", AND when there isn't even a separate article on the subject, removing it, in toto from this biograpy is disgusting. I wonder if Robofish is a RW fan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.63.189 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead
Would someone more talented please rewrite the lead? It mentions a radio contest and a surprise marriage (and a subsequent divorce). Isn't that just trivia? --damiens.rf 17:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to have been done, so I'm removing the warning template. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Money from the calendar
Is there any source for the claim that the money they earned from the calendar was used "...provided the attendance fee for several female applicants..." as described in the article? The reference currently used implies that something on this direction was planned to be done: "[the money] will go toward a fund to help support more women attending the ...".

If no reference can be found to support this, maybe the text must be fixed to say no more that what we have here.--damiens.rf 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the current reference is not neutral, as it's from the one getting the money. Third party coverage would be appreciated. --damiens.rf 17:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The relevance of comments about rape.
InverseHypercube, could you please explain how talking about rape, in any conceivable way, is relevant to the accusation of sexism? Sexism isn't rape. Rape isn't sexism. Accusing someone of being sexist does not make rape relevant. Where does rape come into it? How?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about accusations of sexism directed towards Watson; many people thought that she implied that the man was a rapist or that all men were rapists. The possibility for sexual assault was underlying the discussion the entire time; Watson mentioned feeling uncomfortable getting propositioned at 4 A.M. in a foreign country in an elevator; I think the implication that she felt threatened is pretty obvious. Even if it isn't, though, many people did interpret it that way. Richard Dawkins said "No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here's how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided". PZ Myers said:

Try googling "elevator rape". What you will find is an unpleasant combination of stories about real crimes in which women were raped in elevators, and porn about women being raped in elevators. It is a small confined place in which a woman can be made helpless. Elevators aren't exactly romantic or even comfortable; what a man might consider utilitarian transport can be seen as a cage to a woman alone.
 * Phil Plait also talked a lot about this subject, but I can't seem to load his post "Richard Dawkins and male privilege" at the moment. Inverse Hypercube  22:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not ignorant of the discussion. I have read Phil Plait's post on the subject, and then some. I have read, and even participated a while, in the comments section of Watson's video (though I tired of it, after a while). This is, however, still irrelevant. Nowhere in this article, was rape mentioned, or even implied, so to mention a denial of such is a non sequitur and merely confusing. Rebecca Watson never even implied that rape was ever a consideration, and it is rather ironic to imply that she did, seeing as you are the one who included her expressly denying such a thing (and there are quotes that make it even more clear). As far as I can tell, the only ones that bring rape into it, are those who defend Watson, but never Watson herself. Many of her critics thus get the false idea that Watson herself considered the possibility of rape to have been a significant factor, and call her out as someone who sees men as rapists, for no good reason. None of this is in this article, preceding the comment about her denying that he was a rapist and all men being monsters, so it makes no sense to put it there. It has no relevance to anything preceding it, nor indeed anything that comes after. The issue of rape, in the elevatorgate discussion, is also an irrelevant factor, included by ignorant bystanders, and I therefore do not really consider it worth mentioning in the article.
 * So I ask you again: InverseHypercube, could you please explain how talking about rape, in any conceivable way, is relevant to the accusation of sexism? Where does rape come into it? How?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elevator incident section removed
I have removed this section entirely, as it had a general lack of reliable sources. In general, blogs are not reliable sources: the only source given in this section that might be considered reliable was this one. I don't dispute that the events described happened, and the section was written fairly neutrally, but it's not clear that this 'controversy' was significant enough to deserve mention in a Wikipedia biography. If it received virtually no coverage from the media outside the atheist blogosphere, then it's safe to say it doesn't: internet disputes are not usually worth including in biographical articles. Please don't restore it until more/better sources have been found. Robofish (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were to restrict ourselves to "the media outside the atheist blogosphere", the whole article would have to be deleted. Where more else could that lady be considered "notable"? --damiens.rf 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second that. If one is to ignore the atheist blogosphere, Rebecca Watson isn't worth mention. It's what she does. Without that, she is nothing. A nobody. The blogosphere is a rather significant media entity nowadays, that cannot be ignored. While it shouldn't be regarded as a reliable source of information about, say, the structure of lactase or the history of the Roman empire... What source about what Rebecca Watson has said, is more reliable than a youtube video and a blog post which have her exact words? What better source exists, to know the reactions that others had, and what they said, than the blog posts and such, that those others made in response?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For a number of policy reasons (WP:V, WP:N and WP:BLP foremost), Wikipedia does not use blogs as sources on their own. Content is built from third-party reliable sources, and primary sources are only used within the context of what is reported, and very little beyond that. For example, a quote directly related to content found in a reliable source, but not explicitly mentioned by the source, might be used under the provision of WP:ABOUTSELF, so long as it is germane. The Atlantic Wire is a reliable source. Other potential sources include Salon.com and Wall Street Journal. This story is not restricted to the blogosphere.Novangelis (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering some of the names involved, this is definitely notable enough to warrant a mention. OhINeedANameNow (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Novangelis: thanks, I didn't see those sources earlier. OK, I was a bit over-hasty in removing this - it does seem to have received enough attention to be worth mentioning - and I think the current version of the paragraph is acceptably neutral and in line with the requirements of BLP. Robofish (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is still a question about where in the article the section belongs, though. I've just put it at the end, simply because it's the most recent thing mentioned in the article, and it's easier on the reader to keep it in rough chronological order. I don't feel very strongly about this, it's just a matter of 'what's least confusing to read?' Robofish (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More blogs...
A lot of stuff is being added to this section today but it seems again to be based on blogs and bloggers opinions. The overall tone is also inflammatory ("controversy exploded" and " A second important controversy building event...".

We need reliable sources that cover the controversy itself, and not blog posts that were themselves part of the so called controversy, being used to support some Wikipedian's opinions about the controversy existence.

The unsupported original research will be removed shortly. WP:BLP is not optional. --damiens.rf 18:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't entirely agree with the policy, but I do agree that the many edits went against them. I dunno what I think of the edits, but I guess someone with the power to do so, can restore the page to it's state before them?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The subjects statements are reliable sources for what they said and there significance is put in context by PZ Myers, Psychology Today, Gawker, Public Library of Science and Discover Magazine which are reliable sources. Once reliable sources have demonstrated the significance of views they can be taken straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. LegrisKe (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that someone better at wording than me should work on cleaning the material I added. LegrisKe (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source has not reported it, it is not notable. Primary sources are only used where directly associated with editorially regulated secondarily sourced material, especially when dealing with living persons. Blogs associated with a title are not automatically under such an aegis.Novangelis (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * PLoS and Discover Magazine are reliable per WP:NEWSBLOG. Pharyngula is cited in over 100 articles . Gawkers is a RS. LegrisKe (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that your text synthetises from primary sources, what an encyclopedia shouldn't do. We should use sources that talk about the controversy and not those that were part of the controversy. --damiens.rf 14:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
I gather there was some drama about the image previously, but the current picture seems overly "internet diseasey"--can anyone locate an alternative that reflects what she actually looks like as a human being? The current picture is overexposed, seemingly photoshopped, accessorised and apparently gurning for her wikipedia page, which is distracting from the article and less useful than an ordinary picture would be. 184.107.129.106 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found another one; does it look better?


 * Thanks for pointing it out! Inverse Hypercube  00:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Prosopagnosia.
She's just said on the Skeptic's Guide podcast episode #441 that she has Prosopagnosia. Is it worth putting in? Hammerfrog (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not notable
Really? She has a blog and been interviewed a few times, that's it. Wikipedia has gone down the tubes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.242.39 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't see why this individual meris a Wiki page. Her accomplishments are consistent with what any person with an interest in an area could easily accomplish in a netvironment.

sadly she comes across like an internet Paris Hilton: famous for being famous (though, sadly, Paris is actually famous). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incitatus (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was Nominated for Deletion in 2008 on grounds of Notability and the consensus of editors was to Keep. It is odd that some people have such a strong objection to the existence of an article on someone they claim has no public profile.Martinlc (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think she's notable, simply because I'm not a skeptic, a misogynist or a feminist, but I looked her up on Wikipedia just to see what all the fuss was about. Carlo (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOTABILITY &amp; namely WP:BASIC, a "person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." So we can go back and forth about whether the subject has a notable blog, but until those secondary sources (Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and several other articles a federated journal search might yield, but haven't been added here yet) stop existing, the subject's notability remains sufficient per Wikipedia's policy. What I "think" about her notability is not relevant.


 * This article could certainly stand to be cleaned up, and updated to include additional secondary sources as mentioned, as well as to ensure that due weight is achieved to balance the subject's professional &amp; skepticism contributions with controversies. I'll try and get to that in the coming weeks.Nmillerche (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Look forward to seeing what you come up with Nmillerche. Sgerbic (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that she causes so many sad, scared, little men to froth with impotent internet rage is notable enough, n'est-ce pas? 99.17.4.108 (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question she is not notable. Even as a fellow atheist there is very little on her. She writes a blog. Cool. So does millions of other people. I think this wiki page is just created by the fanboys/fangirls of her who believe the patriarchy is out to get them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernal Demon (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * if you can't even point to the part that is supposedly not neutral I'm going to consider you a troll- 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is neutral it's the fact she's not a notable person that maters. Oh, and the adult thing to do for a wikimedia commons admin is to consider people who disagree with you "trolls"? What kind of sense does that make? Infernal Demon (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * your claim that this article was written by fans is unfounded, she is prominent enough to be attacked by Richard Dawkins for an offhand comment. Nominating an article for deletion after you failed to insert libelous content are the actions of a troll - 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Libelous content? The things I added were 100% true. they were removed for not being original content. Infernal Demon (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh it seems you are the troll because you probably believe I am part of the Patriarchy. XD Infernal Demon (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * She was attacked by Dawkins? That's merely your opinion. One that isn't particularly NPOV or in accordance with an assumption of good faith. As to the notion that this shows notability... It is not even close to being sufficient to show that. It only shows that she was at least notable enough for him to stumble upon, by which standard almost all of the internet may be declared as being notable. That is simply not enough.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has more than enough secondary sources to have the article pass WP:Notability. If you disagree with this, please detail specific items in the Notability guidelines that are not valid for this article. Caidh (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The subject is not notable because I say she's not notable, therefore she is not notable" -- this is not an argument. PS, please learn to use proper talk page format. I've taken the liberty of fixing it for you. Metao (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Infernal Demon needs to consult WP:Notability and point out what parts of it that this article fails to comply with, if it is indeed not notable (I, personally, have no particular opinion on the matter). Also speculations on the bad motives of those who create/maintain an article, has no place here (oh, and check Help:Using_talk_pages, as per what Metao said) ...and 1Veertje/Vera needs to consult Assume good faith. You can't just declare people to be a troll, as easily as that. Not on wikipedia, at any rate. That rather goes against not just policy, but one of the five pillars (i.e. being civil).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"In front of"
I have reverted an edit claiming that Rebecca said she was tired and wanted to go to sleep in front of the "elevator guy", on the basis of it being original research, not backed up by the cited source. This was then re-reverted by the same editor... While I wouldn't say that this constitutes edit warring (though it veers towards it), it is certainly not proper behaviour. I would encourage said editor (OldFishHouse), to discuss the issue, rather then continue such actions, as they are utterly unconstructive and can easily escalate into full on edit warring.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The new source was wholly unambiguous: "broke away from the group", he group being described in the previous paragraph. Restoring the original text with additional reference material is wholly appropriate, unlike adding OR tags for the plainly obvious.Novangelis (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wholly unambiguous? How so? Yes, she says "broke away from the group" (this may very well be an assumption by Rebecca, but lets assume it's true). This does not mean that what she said, was said "in front of" the man, nor does this mean that the man would have been able to hear it. I have been in such large groups myself (how do I know it's a large group? Well, it was a convention ...and either way, it could be a large group. The mere possibility is, for the purposes of this discussion, more than enough), and I can confirm that this is not always possible. She only really states that he was at the bar, not that what she said, was said in front of him.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How on earth can accurate tagging, be described as disruptive tagging!? Furthermore, this is an issue being discussed. If you do not like the tag, discuss it. Don't simply revert it. A participant in a discussion, making edits to a part that is under discussion, is not really acceptable behaviour, you know.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fanciful challenges such as "been able to hear it", speculating on crowd size, and ironic original research ("I can confirm") in order to justify an unjustifiable tag is just tendentious editing--and the ongoing reversions are edit warring.Novangelis (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the source confirm that the crowd was small enough for the man to hear? Does it confirm that the man heard? More importantly, does that source confirm that Rebecca Watson was "in front of" the specific man in question? No. As to ongoing revisions... So you admit that you have committed an act of edit warring, then?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The devil's advocate argument is "she isn't saying she said it in front of him" even though she is saying "[he] wait[ed] for her to express a desire to go to sleep", and is saying that it was inappropriate of him to disregard what she just said. And unless Watson assumed this man was a mindreader this interpretation makes no sense.
 * Watson's talked of this episode many times-this being one of those times when his presence is explicitly described: "I was invited back to the hotel room of a man I had never spoken to before and who was present to hear me say that I was exhausted and wanted to go to bed." The claim is verified in the first source and confirmed by the one I just linked. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote "[he] wait[ed] for her to express a desire to go to sleep" is problematic the added "he" and "ed", are speculation. She says "After all, it seemed rather obvious to me that if your goal is to get sex or even just companionship, the very worst way to go about attaining that goal is to attend a conference, listen to a woman speak for 12 hours about how uncomfortable she is being sexualized at conferences, wait for her to express a desire to go to sleep, follow her into an isolated space, and then suggest she go back to your hotel room for “coffee,” which, by the way, is available at the hotel bar you just left.". This does not mean that, that is exactly what she claimed happened in the incident in question. To claim it does, is speculation.
 * As to your second quote... yes the bit about "present to hear me say", does verify that Rebecca Watson claimed that the man heard it (it still doesn't back up the words "in front of", though). It doesn't confirm it to be true, but it does verify that, that is what she claims. If the citation is replaced with the one you mention, and the sentence is modified to reflect that it is what she claims (which the source does verify) as well as re-wording it ("in front of" is, as I said, not verified), rather than what actually happened (for which there doesn't exist any reliable source).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So are you saying "present to hear me" is different than "I said in front of" in some reasonable, meaningful way? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's assume that her description, as reported in sources, is open to some interpretation. Either way, we definitely know that she expressed a desire to sleep, the guy followed her, and offered her coffee. We don't know for sure that he heard her say she wanted to sleep. So we only really have one choice to remove us interpreting: quote her (or paraphrase her) more accurately, so that the interpretation is left to the reader. How about we just change the sentence to paraphrase her a little better. Something like: She claims that the man followed her to the elevator and invited her to his room for coffee and a conversation, after she had earlier stated that she was tired and wanted to go to bed. This more closely follows the quote in the source, and leaves it to the reader to decide whether the man heard her or not - as it was left to the reader in her initial statement. Thoughts? Metao (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. Sounds fine.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not up to the reader to decide whether he was able to hear her. The Slate article says that he was a part of the group she had been speaking to for a while before she "announced" her desire to sleep. The source cited by Professor Marginalia explicitly says, "present to hear me say." OldFishHouse (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Slight correction there: It's not up to Rebecca Watson, to decide whether he was able to hear her, either. The Slate article says he was part of the group. That confirms nothing. The source cited by Professor Marginalia does, however says that Rebecca Watson claims he was "present to hear" the statement(s).
 * It confirms that she claims it, yes. It does not, however, confirm that he actually did hear it. It should be phrased in such a way, as to reflect that, much like the modifications to the other parts, that I recently made.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Slate article says he was part of the group, but it also says she "announced" her desire to sleep, implying that the group as a whole was listening when she said it. Suggesting that he might not have heard it for some reason seems, as Novangelis pointed out, like unnecessary speculation. Also, the fact that this account is based on her statements alone is given by the first sentence in the section, which says, "Watson described an experience she had." OldFishHouse (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

While you are quite correct in saying that the idea of him not hearing her is speculation, I would add that the idea of him hearing her is also speculation. We don't know ...and she has not, in any of the sources, claimed that he did.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok...so let me get this straight. Because this anonymous man in Watson's anecdote may have, in real life, conceivably, failed hearing what she said she said, the complaint here is that "in the presence of" should not be paraphrased as "in front of". Even while the citation that used the word "present" also said "to hear" (which is, after all, the editors' objection "did he hear?") and the claim as paraphrased here doesn't. Frankly - this makes no sense and is seems to spring from a desire to frame the debate (did he hear it?/did he not?) very very differently than any of the three sources cited have done. The man in the elevator isn't on trial here-he's an anonymous nobody. Watson's encounter on the elevator itself is not notable here. What is, arguably anyway, notable is the fallout or ripple effects that followed her using it to offer "what not to do" advice. That is the focus of both of the published sources, not this "did he/didn't he" business over what the man heard etc. This isn't Court TV. We're not here to investigate or second guess the who did whats in the elevator. We need to reflect the same angle on the story that sources focus on, though frankly-all three are opinion pieces and we should keep that firmly in mind when describing them here. We need to very briefly summarize those opinions without assuming any of them here. I think the whole section should be stripped down and the incident be given three or four sentences, max. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support that. The section overall seems to be attempting to provide the reader with enough information to form an opinion on the controversy, which makes it seem unencyclopedic. A more brief summary might prevent edit wars in the future. OldFishHouse (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of the meaning of the phrase "in front of" is very much lacking. It has nothing to do with whether or not he heard her, but rather has everything to do with her position/direction relative to his position/direction. For example: If he, say, had his back to her at the time (or even better, if she had her back to him), she would not be in front of him. Perhaps you should have asked for a clarification of what I meant by it, rather than simply make an assumption of what I meant. Especially given that it had confused you, which would suggest that you did not understand what I meant. As to the suggestion of making the description more brief: Yeah, sure. Makes sense.
 * Your speculation about the motivation (where you say "seems to spring from a desire to frame the debate") goes straight against Assume good faith and No personal attacks. You have no basis for such speculation, and it has no place on wikipedia (it, indeed, goes against guidelines and policy). You may argue against what I say or suggest, but speculations on why I do so, you may not. You may argue against my arguments, but not against me. That is simply not acceptable.
 * As to us not being here to second guess the actual events... If you were merely making things clear, so that nobody would be tempted to do so, then that is fine. If you are trying to claim, or even just imply, that I have done so, then that is wrong and inappropriate, as I have done nothing of the kind.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your bureaucratic fingerwagging those disagreeing (I'm not the first) is not helping your argument at all. So save your breath. I'll say this --again-- because you're having some difficulty with what I'm saying.  Who said anything about "what he heard"?  The SOURCE said "who was present to hear me say".  This article here on wikipedia didn't--and didn't use the term "hear". You disputed "said in front of" as if it was painting a completely different picture than what the source said in terms of what he heard, and back and forth over this pedantic detour has inspired a nomination to the Hall of Flame.  I know that this supposed gulf between "said in the presence of" and what this guy may or may not have heard warranted no mention whatsoever from the two independent sources cited.  So why are we fixating on it here?  As I said, the whole section should be rewritten to reflect what's notable about the incident per the sources cited, which wasn't "the incident" but "the aftermath". We need to get rid of the all that "then he said then she said then he did then she did" crap because it's not encyclopedic .  But we should not erroneously claim instead it is "unsourced" and suck editors into this adversarial who dunnit style cross examination of claims in the sources which editors are not allowed to do!  Sources frame the debate.  Not us.  And by that standard the "what he heard" is a non-starter.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not "fingerwagged", bureaucratically or not, against anything because of it disagreeing with my opinion. I have fingerwagged against inappropriate behaviour. Neither have I said that any of your arguments on the issues, are any more wrong or right, due to said behaviour. The fact that it has been inappropriate behaviour, done exclusively by those I, as it happens, also disagree with, is wholly irrelevant. That I disagree with your opinions, is not an excuse for being allowed to make ad hominiem attacks against me (and baseless ones at that).
 * As to his hearing her... That has already been dealt with. The initial source did not verify that he could hear her, but the source mentioned here did. This I conceded, as soon as that source was mentioned, so I do not understand why you still go on about the issue.
 * The "in front of" issue may be one you consider pedantry, but... so what? Why would you condemn me, for simply wanting accuracy? Besides, there is a significant difference between "in front of" and "in the presence of". The degree of awareness/notice is clearly different. The different wording does give different images of events. The difference may be subtle, but it is significant. Also, it's just plain wrong and not verified by the sources.
 * As to what happened in actual reality... As I have already stated: I have not, ever (here, that is), made any arguments about what actually happened. Not once. If you claim that I have, please point me to anywhere, where I have. If you can't, then your claims are clearly utterly baseless. The fact that you didn't apologise for the accusation (or at the very least, just drop it), but rather have chosen to go on about it all the more, despite my statement that I have done nothing of the kind, is rather disturbing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems to be going nowhere, so I'm going to make it moot by taking the compromise option and shortening the section. OldFishHouse (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm nominating this discussion for WP:HALLOFLAMECombatWombat42 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This? If this is really bad enough to be worthy of the Hall of Flame (and I seriously doubt it is. I've seen worse on here and I hadn't even heard of the hall of flame before ...and besides: This is the internet!), then that would mean that wikipedia is far more civilized than I thought.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Having taken a quick look at WP:HALLOFLAME... Ah, it's lame edit wars. That does make the nomination a lot more understandable.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Given the requirement on WP:HALLOFLAME, that there has to have actually been an edit war... This "incident" does not qualify.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Metao did go ahead and remove the phrase "in front of" without bothering to wait for a consensus. OldFishHouse (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the nomination. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision elevator section
The changes so far are a step in the right direction but these are some of the elements that I think should still be included. The "incident" arose in the context of her speaking at an atheist conference on the topic of women's under-representation and experiences in the skeptics and atheism blogs and conventions-this better establishes its relevance. Dawkins was seated beside her when she addressed the subject at the conference. ("The community" should be rephrased for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar who exactly is being referred to there.) And although Dawkins drew a lot of support/criticism for his comments on the incident, the resulting feud between them is of minor significance. (Dawkins has engaged in high profile spats with a lot of notable people.) What's notable about this incident is how it snowballed into a fierce debate about sexism and feminism in atheism/skepticism. ("a fairly useful debate ... descended into all out troll warfare and an attendant witch-hunt"). This and this may help us put the episode in a more noteworthy context. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest this as another possible source.Novangelis (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been nicely shortened, but...
 * There should be a mention of the fact that the man asked her for coffee and conversation in his room. Rebecca Watson and her supporters on this issue take that as a euphemism for sex (or to be close enough), while many of her critics find that to be an invalid conclusion.
 * Also the fact that she stated that the man's behaviour was him sexualizing her. A fact that she and her supporters find makes the act all the worse, given that she had done a talk about that exact thing at the event, whilst many of her critics, however, do not consider the man's behaviour as necessarily sexualizing and/or sexist, and consider the accusation to be a baseless one, based on nothing more than a irrationally negative view of men in general. (whilst other critics of Watson's either don't care if it is sexualizing or concede that it is, but in either case, consider it a level of sexualization that is necessary for any romantic relationships to form)
 * These two points are rather central to how/why this became such a controversy and adding it should not require making the section that much longer, anyway. Maybe 3-7 words longer at most, I'd think. Just to add the fact about the "coffee and conversation" and the accusation of "sexualization", that is. Not how the various parties view these aspects.
 * I'm not too sure the edits were made in a proper wikipedia manner, what with having to wait for consensus and all, but... I don't really mind the edits too much, and neither does anyone else it seems, so...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that, while the man did invite her for coffee and conversation, upon being rebuffed by her, he left it alone and did not persist in his actions.  So basically, he behaved in the correct way.  He asked (politely), was rejected, and then took no for an answer.  Wow, what a chauvinistic pig, right?  24.19.65.150 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Central to how/why this became such a controversy"? Where did you read this?  This wasn't even Dawkins' objection, and he's probably the most cited participant chiming in.  There must have been hundreds of overwrought speculations and flamey accusations flying around.  From, "how is a guy ever supposed to get laid then?" to "women do get raped by strangers accosting them in elevators". Another major contender for "became such a controversy" is that it seems to have unleashed the Hounds of TrollHell. So I say again, "central" says who? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dawkins comment was merely a "side-event" in the whole elevatorgate issue. Yes, he is a notable person and the fact that such a big name got into the whole issue is notable, but still... It's a side-event. A notable side-event, but a side-event all the same.
 * People saying "how is a guy ever supposed to get laid then?" and "women do get raped by strangers accosting them in elevators" is more reflective of the actual bulk of the conversation. Those comments (and rape threats and people saying every man are potential rapists) are mainly reflective of the worst people of both sides (who, more or less, over-voice all comments that even approach being reasonable), admittedly, but that is still more or less the actual issue of elevatorgate. Also, the fact that the controversy was/is mostly a sordid flame war, is firmly verified by the sources.
 * As to "says who"... Well take a look at:
 * The comment section of the original video.
 * The comment section of any and all blogs/articles/videos on the issue ...or the articles/blogs/videos themselves.
 * The comments in threads about this issue on major (or minor, for that matter) atheism/scepticism/feminism forums.
 * You may say that those are not reliable sources, but... they are the arena on which the conversation happened/happens. What source could be more reliable? The only problem would be getting an accurate sense of things, given the vast amount of comments. Still, those quotes you mentioned may not have been real accurate quotations of certain specific comments, but you didn't just make them up, out of nowhere. You know, from somewhere, that such comments have been made. Says who? That "somewhere".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, well that's clearly WP:OR - a wikipedian interpretation based on "comments" such this is original research based on the use of comments as primary sources. Of course I didn't "make up" my examples and I wasn't implying you made up yours.  These other examples are to illustrate this "central issue" question isn't self-evident at all -- many involved considered the infights over this inexplicable. That's why we'd need a RS that "say" what's central rather than are used like raw data for analysis on any of our parts. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I have to, somewhat grudgingly, admit that you are quite correct. Thanks correcting me, there ...and I wasn't, in any way, accusing you of making up my examples, I was merely trying to point out that you had a source for those quotes. A source that isn't good enough for wikipedia, but...
 * I do, however, believe that there are reliable sources, that would confirm it though. I might try and find one, but... don't count on me actually doing it. Naturally, I won't be able to say it's the case until I do, but...
 * I would still say that the "coffee and conversation" and the accusation of "sexualization" stuff should be put back in. After all, I didn't really mean to mention, the point about that being more in line with what is central to the issue, as a reason to add them in, but rather to further strengthen the case for putting them in there.
 * Also, as it is written now, it gives a certain, skewed, view of the events. I would argue that it is rather POV, in it's current form. Add those two things back in, and the readers may make up their own minds.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how you think it is "POV"? My concern is that if we put in argumentative details like the fact that the man suggested coffee-drinking, someone else will want to point out that coffee and conversation was freely available in the bar they had just left, someone else will fire back that he said the phrase "Don't take this the wrong way," and the battle will continue. The section shouldn't try to provide the reader with every detail they need to make up their own mind, because the cited sources will link them to never-ending discussion of the topic. The section should just briefly summarize the incident, then focus on the fallout from it, because that's really what's relevant in an encyclopedia entry on Rebecca Watson. OldFishHouse (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's POV because it heavily implies that he actually did ask for sex. Mind you, I do understand your fears of it going too far. If you mention one thing, people will want to mention another, and another and another, and it'll go too far, and probably involve a flame war or two ...but you have to mention something. How much is too much? How much is too little? That is indeed, a problematic issue.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not POV. Reliable third-party sources describe the event as "propositioned". There is no serious doubt that sex was intended. Pushing OR interpretations to create doubt is POV editing, and past a reasonable point becomes disruptive.Novangelis (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no serious doubt that sex was intended? No doubt in the mind of Rebecca Watson, certainly. No doubt in the mind of the specific people who wrote those specific articles you link to, perhaps ...but no serious doubt? That is clearly untrue.
 * Your point about reliable sources describing the event as "propositioned", however, is fair enough. Thus I shall back down on this issue. At least until/unless I bother to find a contradicting reliable source.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources for this seem rather highly POV; but that doesn't mean the language of the article has to be. I cleaned it up to use more neutral language and to more correctly reflect the information given in the sources. Ironlion45 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I am less concerned with POV in this case and more concerned with WP:VAGUE issues here. I would say this it is not NPOV because that imagry evokes a specific response from people and is frankly unnessicary, except for people trying to make a point about the sites mentioned. As for VAGUE issues, I wrote those lines and was not particularly proud of them, the original phrasing implied that all internet users were using obscene imagry when in reality it (as the source admits) was a very small segment of the internet, to have that imagry in this article give voice to that very small minorty well out of weight with their actual voice.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Some commentators" in no way implies everyone on the internet. I'm not following this at all.Countered (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV on rape and death threats
The wording being discussed is the wording of "revealed that some that consider themselves members of the atheist and skeptic community use patriarchal arguments. Some commentators went so far as to use threats of rape, mutilation and murder". From the cited source: "Some men, meanwhile, ridiculed Watson as overly sensitive or worse — or threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder." Now, how is this not NPOV based on the source provided? Countered (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Look one line up CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And you'll see they're talking about a different source, and not just the specific language. There isn't "three people who agreed", there is one person who edited the page based on their own understanding of NPOV. From the source itself I've shown that there were "threats of rape, mutilation and murder". Listing that in the article because it was in the citation isn't against NPOV, unless I'm missing something. Countered (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironlion45 made the edit and made a comment about how the source is not neutral, it seems pretty clear that he was talking about the same thing you are, as for the "agreement" by 3 editors, Ironlion45, myself obviously support that language, Novangelis editied that language so presumably also agrees. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't understand how removing "threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder" makes it neutral, seeing as it's cited by the source. Are you disputing that there were threats?Countered (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See above discussion. It has to do with WP:WEIGHT To quote Jimbo Whales "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is in the article cited? I'm still not following. Is the source not trustworthy?Countered (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this unclear: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia" I can't make it any more clear. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that shows it was held by a very small minority? Does this somehow change the fact that there were in fact threats of rape and death? Are we no longer supposed to write articles about individuals? You're not making any sense. Countered (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Facts are not "a viewpoint". To be clear, I did not concur. I did not restore it immediately in order to mull it over. Replacing specific details with vague terms can be a false form of neutrality, and in this case, I believe it is such. I had restored it once before because I consider it a relevant detail, just as I left mutilation out because I felt it was extraneous: threats of sexual violence and murder seem to create an upper bound which is not augmented by threats of mutilation.Novangelis (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All I see is a citation that says "threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder". I don't see anything about just mutilation, and I don't see how this isn't neutral. Countered (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The people that held "a viewpoint" are in a very small minority. Let me make an example: If I could find a source that said that people claimed that there were aliens living on the moon, that would be a fact by your definition( Fact: "people claim there are aliens living on the moon"), but it would be stupid to mention that on the article for [the moon as that viewpoint is held my an extremely small minority and therefore does not belong on wikipdia. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. What I don't understand it why this is comparable to that, as the fact that there were threats isn't removed, it's just been changed to "heated conversations". In fact it seems like that would actually be adding bias to the article, not the other way around. i.e. "some people think strange things about the moon". They think there are aliens, and if the article is talking about situations where people think wierd things about the moon, isn't it relevant to add that? In this situation is seem like an attempt to neutralize the language is actually biasing the article.Countered (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The main reason for not including that language about threats is that it reflects the actions of a very very tiny group of individuals, and possibly just the act of a single person. The inclusion of this information, in this context, creates the implicit suggestion that these actions were typical of the people who objected to Watson's statements.  Including explicit mention of them, especially in such graphic wording, gives the fact that such threats were received inappropriate weight in the description of these events, where the role of hate mail/internet threats in this controversy was minimal, at best.
 * This appears to be the view of all people currently editing this article, save one; so I'm going to go ahead and assume there is a consensus regarding this. However, since I suspect that any edits made will simply be reverted by the dissenting editor regardless of any other consensus, I'll suggest an edit that uses language along the lines of "Threatening messages" or "Personal threats", which would hopefully be satisfactory to everyone editing this piece currently. Ironlion45 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this edit, and I believe that NPOV is being misused to censor this page. If you're fine with leaving the fact that threats were made - why aren't you okay with specifying what types of threats were made? This rule on minority opinion shouldn't, and logically does not apply to an event that has happened, and has been reported on from multiple sources. Changing the language doesn't make it neutral, it creates a clear cut bias. Countered (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking of weight, I'm worried that the Elevatorgate section now has too much weight. I believe the content on the page should be stripped back, but keeping the full set of references. This is a page about Watson, not Elevatorgate; someone that wants to know more about Elevatorgate can go read the sources. Hopefully also by stripping it back we will avoid finicky edit wars over wording and details. The details shouldn't even be on this page. Thoughts? Metao (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree Metao, this talk page, and article as a result, has been completely taken over by those obsessed with this ONE 5 second comment on YouTube. I agree that the 'elevatorgate' section should be edited way down, way down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap020570 (talk • contribs)
 * It was not "one 5 second comment". The relative weight in the article is on par with coverage of the incident vs. overall coverage of the subject in reliable sources.Novangelis (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When examining the subject of the article as a public figure, this "elevatorgate" incident is highly significant with regards to why people would know of her, hear her name referenced, and/or desire to read a Wikipedia article about her. Particularly because it involved one of the most well-known figures of the movement which she is also a part of.   It's a notable event, and one of the significant reasons for which she herself is notable. Ironlion45 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference #22
Why does is this reference include a quote in it. that doesn't seem in keeping with WP: Citing sources? Cap020570 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a quote field in the ref tag. Probably the editor who put this in felt the need to justify the citation with the relevant quote. It's not strictly necessary though, and the quote (in the citation) could probably be taken out. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will. Cap020570 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Lack of criticism section
Watson has expressed views disparaging evolutionary psychology in its studies of gender, and has received strong criticism from respectable sources in the skeptic community. Reecently a book was published, 13 Reasons to Doubt (Onus Books, 2014) includes essays by a number of writers of the Skeptic Ink Network (www.skepticink.com). Contributers include: Russel Blackford, a famous philosopher, and John W. Loftus, a popular ex-Christian author of books on atheism and skepticism. The final chapter by Edward Clint cites Watson as a science denialist. The original criticism has been posted online here, and the link to the book is [ http://www.amazon.com/13-Reasons-Doubt-Edward-Clint/dp/0992600049/ref=tmm_pap_title_0 here]. Since this is a credible source, and an important fact about Watson's reception in scientific circles, I think a section ought to be included with a description of and link to this criticism. Other criticisms could be added in as others see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resip27 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Charlie Charlie Challenge
If anyone is watching this, there is a claim that might go to RSN on Talk:Charlie Charlie Challenge - I would argue that Skepchick is reliable enough for the claim that spinning a pencil on another pencil is like James Hydrick's stunt where he spins a pencil on a desk.

-- Aronzak (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

False History
The user Florian Blaschke, who might have made great contributions to Wikipedia, claims that an updated version was "unbalanced" and threw everything away, despite that it was all well sourced, including even timestamps in videos. We are now back to a grossly false, heavily distorted version that bears no resemblence to what happened, which apparently, Mr Blaschke considers "balanced". Bizarrely, the article doesn't even mention the real elevatorgate event that started it (which was the CFI talk), but presents a complete fabricated, false version (this is itself a feature of elevatorgate, as demonstrated in the article itself).

The case should be clear, but for a quick entry, see this blog post with the comments restored, where Dear Muslima (#75) originally appeared (which would later become pivotal, which I also explained, with sources, how). The context is, clearly, the CFI talk and the discussion is clearly about the talking points Ms Watson had introduced and her manner she introduced them (hence the title "name names"). My appeal: don't allow ideologues to rewrite history. Lokkhen (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though my edits were well-sourced and actually explain what really happened, they were undone with quick-drive-bys and people claimed this could be settled on the talk page. This is already questionable, since everything one needs to know is presented in the updated article and I don't need to explain once more the facts as they were. I still did, but nobody came here to justify why we go back to the false reporting. Thus I view the undos as not made in good faith, and have taken the liberty to restore the better (and correct) version of events. If something is disputed, I want to ferret out what it is, so we have a bright spotlight on this. Lokkhen (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was in the audience at the 2011 CFI event, so I hate to unaccept your edit, but please review WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Your version has tons of npov issues, but just to highlight one, PZ Myer's blog is not an appropriate source to make the claim "The manner, content and context of her talk was highly polarizing."  Please do not re-restore your version without addressin the sourcing and neutrality issues in it, or this article may need something other than PC1. Please also read WP:AGF. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But PZ Myers was a credible source in the previous version, too, and that assessment has TWO sources (of opposing ends, PZ myers agreeing with Watson, the other disagreeing with her). Both refer to an apparent controversy, which matches both the content of Ms Watson's CFI claims, which were fully cited (with timestamp) as well as corroborated by other sources I listed there. Also, if this all didn't exist, to WHAT did Richard Dawkins reply? To an offhand remark made in a video nobody would know about hadn't Ms Watson introduced it in the CFI talk? It makes no sense. This whole article is a complete nonsense. There is a good reaosn for the "false reporting" section, because fans and supporters are bent on portraying it systematically false. Objective evidence disagrees. Lokkhen (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:SPS. I'm sorry for the laundry list of links without much explanation, but having to explain to people who are convinced our articles on Rebecca, Brianna Wu, Anita, etc, are flawed about a dozen times a month takes a long time and I haven't just written a blanket written answer yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think Kevin Gorman is right that there are some non-NPOV statements in the longer version, but Lokkhen definitely has a point that there are some things glaringly missing from the current version -- things that are crucial to understanding the incident. Klortho (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article as it stands is missing details, but Lokkhen's version had far too many BLP issues to be allowed to stand. It was pretty chock full of original research, NPOV and sourcing issues, and WP:BLPSPS issues (I actually mislinked that policy in my first post.)  One reason that I've never made an effort to rewrite Rebecca's article, but only to keep BLP problems out of it, is because I've both met Rebecca multiple times, and I was one of probably fewer than a hundred people in the audience at the CFI leadership conference the article discussed.  I had some serious problems with her speech, most specifically the manner in which she addressed a student who had criticized her who was sitting in the first half of the audience in a way that I viewed as excessively harsh, and in a way that I felt was inappropriate because the student both had no opportunity to respond and because of the inherent power dynamic between an invited keynote speaker and a student blogger sitting in the audience.  Because I both have strong opinions about parts of it, and know most of the parties involved, I don't feel I can appropriately write the article.  But the draft I restored went beyond minor NPOV issues - inappropriate selective editing of a Youtube video of the speech (which is not an acceptable source or the article to begin with,) claims that only Dawkins received criticism (which is a hilarious load of crap,) tons of original research that is just flat out wrong, rants about SJWs, etc. I strongly disagreed with parts of how Rebecca handled parts of the incidents involved to the point that I don't feel I can write about it in a suitably neutral way (additionally because Wikipedia must follow what reliable sources report, and having been present for a lot of the physical events and online discussions mentioned, I have a hard time writing a piece using reliable sources that I know to be factually inaccurate or incomplete - but there are a lot of very good reasons why we have the sourcing policies we do, and those reasons are more important than any single article.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could suggest a way forward,, I notice that this blog post isn't referenced at all from the article. I read that, way back in the day, and was impressed by it, because it is so comprehensive, and really much more fair and balanced than a typical blog post. IMO, it's a much better reference for "elevatorgate" than this article, as it stands. Maybe it could provide the basis for adding additional material into this article, which could be done step-by-step. Klortho (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Klortho, sounds like a good idea. The source is also a good one. I was myself not present at the time and only learned about this long after the fact, but found the original context strangely missing. I disagree with Kevin Gorman's version who otherwise retells exactly what was in my version, too (Stef etc). Of course people will always, and always have tried to make this about "social justice". But our job is to document what happened, not ideology. Things like this (Gorman:) "inappropriate selective editing of a Youtube video of the speech (which is not an acceptable source or the article to begin with,)" are plain absurd. The video is excellent documentation for what she said exactly, how she said, and in which context she said it. Maybe it makes Mr Gorman uncomfortable, which I suspect, but it is a primary source, i.e. the best source that exists. You don't even need a journalist middle-person to remember things correctly, when you have the direct quotation on tape. But this kind of commentary just shows that I don't find Mr Gorman's take particularily reliable. Her talk begins with hate-mail, which was mentioned correctly, too, then this segment with the strong accusations which kicked off the whole kerfuffle, and afterwards is her actual topic for the evening. Nothing is "selective" here. I would even vote for splitting this into it's own article for the reason that Elevatorgate is inherently about a major dispute, and that the bio page of a living person should be somewhat mild towards that person. However, false reporting and falsely informing about what happened is no longer an option. Lokkhen (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's great that you want to improve the article, and I know it's frustrating to have your edits reverted, but you really do need to get yourself familiar with the sourcing policy of Wikipedia. It's not arbitrary (although sometimes it might seem that it's arbitrarily enforced) and it's especially important in biographies of living persons (BLPs). For example, you said that the video, since it's a primary source, is the best source there is -- but that's exactly wrong. WP prefers secondary sources (see here). Kevin also mentions "original research", which is related -- that's what you're doing when you take a primary source, and interpret it to fit your narrative. Also, just to be clear -- I'm not suggesting using the blog post I linked to *as a source* -- that's counter to the "self-published sources" policy (WP:BLPSPS) that Kevin linked to. I'm suggesting to use it as a template, if you will, for how to proceed with editing this article. Everything you add to the article should have good, reliable secondary sources to back them up. Klortho (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This lawyering is of course beside the point. You cannot sweep the inciting incident under the carpet and simply start somewhere in the middle just because you feel like it. It is apparently perfectly fine to cite Richard Dawkins or Rebecca Watson herself, but for some mysterious reason the original starting point cannot be mentioned and shown? This cannot be right. Further, all of the main points are connected to PZ Myers' "name names" article. It is about the CFI talk, it mentions the controversy and it is also the place where Richard Dawkins makes his comment. If you want to nix it, the whole thing falls apart. When do you plan on updating the article? Lokkhen (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This "lawyering" isn't "lawyering," it's how we write an encyclopedia while not being unfair to the living subject of the article. These policies apply far more broadly than to this article alone. I'm not going to write the article myself for reasons I outlined above, but you are more than welcome to do so as long as you follow the encyclopedia outlines outlined above.Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rebecca Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081018180403/http://www.theskepticsguide.org:80/archive.asp to http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130905214418/http://www.wickedlocal.com:80/brookline/fun/entertainment/x1429055418 to http://www.wickedlocal.com/brookline/fun/entertainment/x1429055418

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When was the asteroid named after her?
It was discovered in 2001, but the line makes it sound as if it was named for her in 2001. . . Was she that well known when she was 20? Nothing in the article indicates that she was particularly well known before graduating. -- Bertrc (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Watson wasn't relevant in 2001. Who named her anyway? Was it the person who found the star, NASA, or who? Too much ambiguity on an article for a person who is a contentious topic. More information is needed or a speedy deletion should be under way. User:r00b07 (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rebecca Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080912125609/http://www.vueweekly.com:80/article.php?id=9429 to http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=9429
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080906063430/http://skepchick.org:80/blog/?page_id=855/ to http://skepchick.org/blog/?page_id=855/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716032441/http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=8100 to http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=8100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Place of Birth
Her page needs a more precise place of birth. "United States" or "New Jersey" aren't enough for a living person who is worthy of their own Wikipedia article. It seems impossible to find good, accurate information on where she is from, or what she did for her first 20 or so years of her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R00b07 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)