Talk:SlutWalk/Archives/2013/October

Cities and harassment
Hello, I corrected the links and list of cities (also added Buenos Aires), and added a headline on the sexual harassment episode which took place in Brazil. Luxxxbella (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone deleted the harassment part so I re-added it. Could anybody explain why an episode of sexual harassment during a march against sexual harassment would not be relevant in an article regarding the movement which organised the march against sexual harassment?

If there is any other policy I'm overlooking, please be so kind to poit it out so I can learn! Luxxxbella (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The policy you are overlooking is a part of Verifiability specifically reliable sources. The sources used are not considered reliable, such their content can not be added to the article, which is why it was removed. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I still think it is kinda weird to say a video of things happening is not "verifiabile", I read all the way through the policy and it does not seem to refer to any content which can be documented via multimedia (pictures, videos). However that may be, I added a link to O Globo, the brazilian newspaper which published the case. Do you think that'll make it? Luxxxbella (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm at work so I can't watch the video, however I can give you a hypothetical why it might be removed. If the video is raw footage of the incident, then including it would probably be considered Original Research.  We as wikipedia editors should not engage in analysis of events, what we do is record what is being said in reliable sources.  A raw video of the incident does not describe anything, and using it as a source adds a meaning to it that may not be in the source itself. Does this help? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does indeed! Thanks. I went through the policy again and got to a simmilar conclusion: that a video is more like "original research", plus we have no proof that the title of the video is actually related to the content itself. Thanks again! Luxxxbella (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are the problems I have with this section:
 * The event itself is of dubious significance. Is this the only time a guy has flashed the people at these rallies?  Are we only concerned with flashers and not other forms of harassment?  Where do you draw the line?  Should we include a list of every incident for every rally?  What makes this event so significant that we have to include it on Wikipedia?
 * The supporting opinions are taken from random damning internet forums, this is such amazingly bad journalism I don't even know what to say.
 * The sources are trivially unreliable, Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources here. A reliable source might be CNN or the BBC, etc.  From our policy on reliable sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Do Facebook and Youtube have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?  You might argue that they're being used as primary sources, but we can't stitch together primary sources to make a point, as that would be synthesis of materials, also against policy.
 * You're approaching this completely backwards. You have something you want to say and you're hunting for sources to support it.  What you should be doing is reading sources and deciding what you want to say based on that.  And when I say, "read sources", I don't mean lurking on the worst and most offensive forums you can find.  Find us some reputable organizations who thought this flasher was so significant to cover it themselves.  Before you go restoring these sections again, we need two things established:
 * That the event is significant enough to warrant coverage here. This means multiple third party sources covering it.
 * If you want it to seem like a debate between two sides, you need to establish that there are two sides by finding actual informed opinions by notable people, not GetBackToTheKitchenololTroll69. Otherwise this would get one sentence max, as part of another section.
 * PraetorianFury (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * First thing first, this is the first article at Wikipedia I'm editing ever. I have gone through all the basics but this is my first time applying them in a real field. Just so nobody takes personal or finds bias in what is only trying to learn.
 * The event itself is of dubious significance. Is this the only time a guy has flashed the people at these rallies?  Are we only concerned with flashers and not other forms of harassment?  Where do you draw the line?  Should we include a list of every incident for every rally?  What makes this event so significant that we have to include it on Wikipedia?
 * I understand the importance of all these questions, though right now I can only attempt to answer the last: it makes it significat because a. it shows the exact behavior the Slutwalk is protesting against b. It is a broadly known response to feminist virtual and real-file actions (so I thought it would be no surprised it also happened at the slutwalk. I haven't haunted all pages about feminist protests, I made an assumption. My bad. New at this.
 * The supporting opinions are taken from random damning internet forums, this is such amazingly bad journalism I don't even know what to say.
 * It is interesting you mention it. I intended to relate this to whatever content was available on wikipedia related to online mobbing. It turned out there was none. However I was still wrong on this, because in search for mobbing I should have done the opposite: same kind of comments in (well, almost any)other context or wahtever... anyway, seems thee's not enough room yet for that either. I can live with that.
 * The sources are trivially unreliable, Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources here.
 * Glad to know. Funnily enough I work om media and in most local media (at least) Facebook and Twitter "are" considered reliable sources when they are an official entity or a public figure. Again, I shouldn't have assumed it would be so in here, but it never came to my mind till someone pointed it out.
 * You're approaching this completely backwards. You have something you want to say and you're hunting for sources to support it.
 * Haha, I think you may be at least partly right on this one. It's not really something I "want" to say, it's just something I thought was relevant enough to be shared -isn't that what brought us all herer in the first place? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxxbella (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like I should apologize, I was at work when I saw your edits and a little drained of energy, so my response was a little more blunt than I think was necessary. I am a little annoyed that I had to "be the bad guy" when so many other editors are watching this page, but whatever.  No worries on being new, when I first got here about 5 years ago, I made all kinds of mistakes and wasn't as adaptive as you're being, so nice job on that.
 * Here's why I find the section on this incident particularly troubling: WP:WEIGHT. It's not only our job to report the facts on Wikipedia, our readers rely on us to put things in perspective.  If you just want to know what's happening in the world, you can read the news.  But that's not what we do here.  We are an encyclopedia so we should be attempting to write articles from a historical perspective.  Will history remember the time that one guy flashed the feminists at a Slutwalk rally and some internet trolls lauded him for it?  I really don't think so.  Now if you had a bunch of people repeating this story all over the place, that would be significant.  Especially if they were activists in or critics of the rallies.  But what I've seen so far implies this was an isolated and insignificant incident, even if it seems like the perfect example of the issues women face.  IMO if we reported this incident, we would be exaggerating its importance and giving the impression that things are more dire than they actually are (IE women can't even rally without getting flashed all the time!).  Newspapers and sites thrive on doom and gloom, but we should be better than that.  If something is bad, we should say it's bad.  If it's not bad, we should say it's not bad.
 * Weight is something that is kind of subjective here, and people battle about it all the time, so it's much easier to talk about something more black and white: the sources. Good sources are mainstream encyclopedias, news sites, experts in the field, etc.  We can't go around collecting quotes from random forums because then you could stitch together some of the worst comments and completely twist reality.  There are racists and sexists and nazis floating around out there, but we don't cover their opinions as if they are common.  Opinions present in the article must have some special significance.  My personal test for significance is whether or not the speaker has a Wikipedia article already.  IE if you want to include what someone has said, Wiki them; if they have an article already, they are probably significant enough to mention.  It's not perfect, but it has worked for me.  So in this case, what happens when you try to find notable people talking about the incident?  Can you find any actually supporting this guy's actions?  If, as I suspect, you can't, that should tell you that things aren't nearly as bad as the section was implying.
 * PS: I used to believe like you that using YouTube as a primary source was fair game, but the counter-argument was that YouTube videos can be modified or labeled in such a way that is misleading or false. Same with Facebook.  If you have no choice but to use them, that should imply something about the significance of whatever you're trying to report. PraetorianFury (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get the whole picture now (and makes so much sense!). I still think (personally) the event is worth mentioning, but I promise to stick to re rules :D Thanks for takig the time to explain! 190.30.132.232 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the "Slutwalk answer" section
This is clearly an editor's response and merely repeats the same points that are made elsewhere in the article. If members of the movement responded to these comments specifically, then it would be appropriate to create a section or paragraph for the Slutwalk "answer". But they didn't. This is an editor deciding that this comment is an appropriate refutation. And IMO it's not an appropriate refutation at all, because it misses the entire meaning behind the comments, specifically that dressing sluttily is risky, and while not an invitation for rape or blame, is still a bad decision in some situations. But this is besides the point, putting these two sections back to back falsely implies dialog where there was none. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing on what you say, I just though the "Responses" section (which is actually more like "criticism" as was also argued in this page earlier) was sort of outweighting the description of the movement itself and attempted to add a point of view. Is it not "unbalanced" that the criticism of the movement takes more space than the movement itself (this was also a reason I posted the harassment episode as well)?
 * And while we are at it, "dressing sluttily is risky" is the exact fallacy the Slutwalk is protesting against -it is kind of unbalanced to leave the response unanswered.
 * So, anyway, any ideas on how do we balance the content?Luxxxbella (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did notice that the point you were trying to make wasn't reported clearly in the article, I just have a problem with it being formatted as if it was part of a conversation that never happened. Additionally, the Daily Mail isn't a very good source, so I've found a different one from a more reliable paper, The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-mobilise-for-first-british-slutwalk-rally-2281611.html


 * As I'm looking at the article now, it looks like you're right. Responses to the rallies are taking up more than half the article.  So I've created a new section for objectives of the rallies which I think is a more appropriate place to put explanations and justifications.  It's pretty bare bones at the moment, with the opinion of just one of the rallies, so if you would like to expand it a bit, I think this would be a perfect place. PraetorianFury (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes! Absolutely this! Will have to really check my sources this time, though :D
 * Also, do you think -with due time and sources- we could add a section about the differences among the Slutwalks? Because it's not actually a vertical movement, each city organises independently. This would show some of the diversity which is also questioned in the responses below. 190.30.132.232 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Luxxxbella (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a really good idea actually. There's been a bit of a dispute over how to handle the list of Slutwalks.  One editor would prefer no list at all, while I feel it's necessary to establish that the movement is truly "global".  If you can turn the list into actual text, that would be ideal. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have seen the discussion over the list, I even corrected some links in the section "India and the World" on the article itself but someone pushed the cities list down to the links and references section. That certainly doesn't help balancing the content, and I don't think it's correct to not have one single city lited in the article apart from Toronto, considering the movement did start in Canada, but quickly spread to the world and rallys soon became annual in many places (there are at least two slutwalks in different countries today!)
 * However, I think even that list is incomplete, since there are links in the talk page not reflected on it, and eI added Buenos Aires and I don't see it either (I'm pretty sure I used a local newspaper to support, I could easily look it up again). I could work on that.
 * Do you think it would be ok to add sub-sections for the continents, and then list the cities and countries in them? Or else, we could change "India and the wold" for "Rest of the world" and list all cities there... Luxxxbella (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to restore the list now that there are two editors supporting its inclusion and one arbitrarily denying it, buuuut...I don't wanna escalate things worse and get a full blown edit war here. So I think if you have something to say besides listing the cities, then sure, that would be completely appropriate.  Maybe review the links given and just give us a little extra information about each.  I think that would satisfy everyone. PraetorianFury (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Responses to responses
Although not looking specifically for responses, I did find this article which mentions and addresses a few of the arguments in the "Responses" section. Is this source good enough to add information to the "Responses" section? (No problem if it's not, I actually was searching for information on global manifestations... but if it's good I think it's worth adding) Luxxxbella (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well using my test, if we wiki "F-word", sure enough we come up with The F-Word (feminist blog). In my experience, if a website's article has managed to survive the extremely skeptical editors who watch for new article creation, that website is good enough to cite for its opinion.  I've got no problems with this one. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ~does the I'm-a-newbie-and-did-something-right dance~
 * I'll keep your test in mind for the future!
 * Luxxxbella (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
I don't think the article should be deleted. At least not yet. As Steven Paikin of TVO discusses (http://feeds.tvo.org/~r/TheAgendaWithStevePaikin/~3/PMls2gHxF5s/1929003_48k.mp3), the protest may have wider repercussions, and may have laid the seeds for a new form of protest in the global scale. If it does not, then it can be deleted, but some time is needed to have the benefit of hindsight.--Eleman (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On July 16, 2011, about 50 people rallied for India's first Slutwalk, called Slutwalk arthaat Besharmi Morcha.[18][19] Rita Banerji, Indian feminist and author reports that SlutWalk was criticised as irrelevant in the face of female feticide, infanticide, dowry murders and honor killings. She argues: "The issue at the crux of the SlutWalk is one and the same as for all the other above mentioned afflictions. It is about the recognition of women as individuals with certain fundamental rights, including that of safety and personal choices, which no one, not even the family, can violate."[20]

This page needs to be deleted, citations are too few.

Who is Rita Banerjee, we don't know any body in Kolkata, why has she got a page? Slut walk is a small insignificant rally in kolkata MithulGhosh (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rita Banerji would be the appropriate place to dispute Rita Banerji's significance. Slutwalks are not a single insignificant rally on Kolkata, they've been in cities on almost every continent, and we have included reliable sources in the article to support that. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, a huge wiki article for such a non-entity. Can I write a few books and then get wikipedians to write an essay length article on me too?Oxr033 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If that book receives lots of mainstream coverage, yes. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)