Talk:SlutWalk/Archives/2012/April

POV issues
There are a number of issues with this page. To be specific, it's built around the criticism (the "debate" section is exclusively criticism), as if that's the central focus of the topic, rather than simply presenting the phenomenon as it is and presenting both sides in the discussion for what they are. A key example is, in the introduction it says "Some objectors have remarked that this approach is an example of women defining their sexuality in male terms," yet in contradiction, the "debate" section starts off with the views of two men defining SlutWalk. I'm willing to work on this when I have a moment, but I wanted to note these things for reference. WallyCuddeford (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with your assertion that the the "debate" section is exclusively criticism. It is a totally unbalanced "debate" with no positive assertions and no responses to the arguments of the numerous "traditional feminists" who have queued up to bash SlutWalk. I don't know enough about the subject to fix this imbalance, but as it stands it this article is POV riddled and hardly worthy content for an encyclopedia. King of the  North   East  10:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the npov tag, because its just ridiculous - the point of the section is to list the different ways people have replied to the SlutWalk phenomenon. The SlutWalk description comes in the previous section, and overall, it balances out well: the article describes what SlutWalk is, and then describes what commentators and scholars have observed. The people listed wouldn't agree with each other over why they disagree... All of it is sourced and footnoted. If you wish to introduce well sourced additional material that for example, presents a reply to these comments, go ahead and do it. Don't just introduce your pro-SlutWalk bias with an unsubstantiated banner - do the work you think needs doing! Hyper3 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In your own words "the point of the section is to list the different ways people have replied to the SlutWalk phenomenon". In this it has utterly failed as it only reports unrelentingly negative coverage (including from Rod Liddle, a misogynist who used his newspaper column to call his ex-wife and the mother of his two kids a slut). I've changed the section header to "Criticism", if you are going to change it back to "Debate" again please ensure that you add some actual balance to the "debate" by adding some positive coverage. Thanks King of the  North   East  15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 1: SlutWalk phenomenon described: reasons for it given. Notability accepted. Paragraph 2: the response by reporters, scholars, politicians. Both sides balanced, npov! The debate section doesn't have much pro-SW in it, the description section doesn't have much anti-SW. What is the problem?Hyper3 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As for your accusations of "pro-SlutWalk bias" simply for complaining that a debate section contains nothing even resembling debate, perhaps you should grow up and stop slinging insults. It's this kind of poisonous mentality that stopped me from being a regular contributor here and it crops up virtually every time I pop back for a visit. Perhaps if people like you weren't so insulting and quick to delete things, I'd still make the time to do the work you think I should be doing. King of the  North   East  15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means add any responses that exist to the comments currently found in the debate section. I am perfectly in favour of that. I am sorry for being over combative. please accept my apology and help make this a better article. I have been crossing swords with the people you speak of too often myself, and replied myself in an ill-disciplined way. Hyper3 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is an over-abundance of criticism on this page without an equal amount of support--best shown by the fact that the two quotations brought out of the main body of the text are criticisms. While they may be valid, why are there no quotations of SlutWalk supporters highlighted in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.102 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, telling the story of why the Slutwalk phenomenon emerged, what happened and why has about equal space to those responses that are not positive. NPOV requires that the debate is reflected, not that equal airtime be given to both sides: see WP:DUE (should flat-earthers have equal time with round earthers?) But please, find verifiable quotes to bring in more voices that are pro-SlutWalk if you think the balance needs to be righted - this is all about the wisdom of crowds! Hyper3 (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)