Talk:SlutWalk/Archives/2011/August

Justice Dewar material
I believe the material LamontCranston wishes to include in this article must be shown to have direct relevance to the SlutWalk movement. Otherwise, we could insert material on any number of rape cases which appear to blame the victim. If the dispute had its own page, it might be relevant as a "see also." Hyper3 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it not an incident along with the cops footinmouth that sparked it? It was my understanding that it was, certainly happened soon after. LamontCranston (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's assuming that the police officer's statement was a case of "foot in mouth," which I don't buy. What that police officer said was equivalent to suggesting that you should keep your valuables hidden when out walking at night, so you don't get clobbered for them.  That's in no way blaming the victim, and the police officer's statement would never have been controversial if the issue hadn't been one that particularly concerns women.  140.147.236.195 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Re structuring of page
I have begun editing the SlutWalk page as things have moved on considerably and the page looks very out of date. I have changed a lot of the text to put it in the past tense, removing statements made in the future tense.

I note that the original Table of Contents reflects a focus on the original march and I am wondering whether with everything now written (particularly in our local Australian media on the pros and cons of the SlutWalk concept and march whether the page sections should be re-titled to reflect a different focus? I have added a section for criticism. There are already comments made in the first paragraph at the top of the page specific to the original Toronto march and then there is a separate section devoted to it below. I am wondering whether it would be more appropriate to delete or merge this information? Page structure suggestions welcome.Writerose (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that there has been a template added to this page claiming that synthesis of public material has been made without sources and pointing editors to this page. Unfortunately there is no explanation here of what is being questioned on the page and no way to assess the validity and breadth of the template and its criticisms. Perhaps someone can remove the template given there is no way to address it as it is not clear to what in the article it applies?

I removed the citation required template from the statement that SlutWalk 'has generated grassroots support'. I believe that the thousands of people attending rallies across the globe constitutes grassroots support and do not appreciate having citation templates placed on basic facts. If an editor has a contrary view I suggest they insert it with appropriate referencing rather than questioning an obvious fact.Writerose (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But that's Original Research. You see thousands attending rallies across the globe--and you CONCLUDE grassroots support.  It's not a basic fact; it's a conclusion.  And even if it were a basic fact, it could still use a citation so as not to be simply stating what you've observed.  140.147.236.195 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Leave in the incident with Justice Robert Dewar, it was the other contributing factor and honestly a lot worse than the dumb cop. LamontCranston (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But leaving it in because "this was dumb" or "that was a lot worse" at least assumes a consensus on what is in fact a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the police officer only spoke common sense, and his remarks no more blame the victim than suggesting that someone who got robbed shouldn't have set down his wallet on the bar and turned his back; no, he shouldn't have, but the only wrong committed was the other person picking up the wallet.  I think this distinction is commonly recognized, and the police officer's statement wouldn't have been an issue if it wasn't specially associated with women.  You think it should be in because it was "dumb."  That implies an agenda to push your view, rather than simply recording a phenomenon.  My own view is that it was not "dumb."  Which would suggest removing it.  See the problem?  But there it does seem that the phenomenon was sparked by the officer's remark.  140.147.236.195 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza