User talk:Willowwalsh

First Edit
Hey, Willow, got your email explaining your first attempt to edit. Again, I anticipate some kinks along the way. Your plan to redo the edit later tonight is a good one. Also: I'm responding to you here on your talk page to see how easy it is to communicate with other editors in this fashion. Could you let me know that you found this message? Try responding to me here or on my own talk page. Aschuet1 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just seeing this! I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. Also, I think I was able to successfully redo my edit (I remembered to hit save this time). --Willowwalsh (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I had hoped that you might get an email alerting you to my response, but it doesn't seem to work that way. I didn't get an alert that you had replied to me either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Rhetorical Analysis
Article: Carol (film)

Strengths: Structure is clear-many subheadings; good organization

Article is balanced- not one section seems to stand out; every heading seems to have even coverage

Coverage is neutral- Even though it received daunting snubs at the 2016 Oscars, and it's a film with two female, lesbian leads, the coverage seems to be unbiased and strictly informative.

Reliable sourcing- Each section appears to have multiple, reliable citations which total 181 sources.

Weaknesses: Lead section- The lead in is actually quite comprehensive; however, towards the last paragraph, it seems to go too in depth into material that is located further in the article, under various subheadings.

Hostile dialogue- The talk page is littered with hostile, abusive dialogue that scolds editors for going too in depth in certain details of their edits.

4.) Article creation date: 3 June 2013

In its earliest form, it was, merely, just the title. Then, the next edit from June 3rd, 2013 wasn't until March 5th, 2014. At that time, the article had the subheadings: cast, production, references, and external links. There was minimal information available which resulted in a skeleton of an article. After it was released and nominated for 6 Oscars, the information poured in and the number of subheadings grew along with the information they carried.

In the beginning, user "Captain Assassin!" added most of the content; however, in its current stage, most edits are made by user "Pyxis Solitary." This user is responsible for the hostile language, directed at others editors, on the talk page. Multiple editors expressed deep dissatisfaction with the dialogue the hostile editor was engaging in. One editor even went as far as to cite Wikipedia's civility guidelines.

The total time the "Carol (film)" article has been in edit is almost 4 years. The movie was released in November of 2015.

The article edits are, indeed, still active. The most recent edit was made on March 24th, 2017.

5.) The talk page was used quite actively. Its most recent addition was on March 11th, 2017. Most of the editors on the talk page were also on the history page. The editors were very adamant about their own edits, not forgetting to scrutinize other editors for their edits. The tone was harsh and unnecessary. The hostility didn't seem to add anything useful to the editorial effectiveness.

The main arguments in the talk page concerned: how in depth they should go into which scenes were cut and which roles were reduced, the external links, how they should make the plot summary more concise, and whether or not they should use the terminology "have sex" or "make love" when describing Carol and Therese's first encounter.

Edits: I was pretty apprehensive about making changes after I read through the awful talk page. I didn't dare hit "edit," but I made a suggestion on the talk page and decided to leave the pushy editors to have their own choice about it.


 * This is a reasonable plan and definitely acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion was: the line "Carol calls Frankenberg's to thank the clerk who returned the gloves and invites Therese to lunch" seemed slightly inconclusive when I first read through it, so I suggested making the edit:

"Carol calls Frankenberg's to thank the clerk who returned the gloves and invites[her,] Therese[,] to lunch."

Brainstorming Topics:
Topics list:

1.) Nasty Women Project

2.) Rachel Maddow

3.) Lana Winters (Reoccurring American Horror Story Character)

4.) The Cranberries

5.) Emoluments Clause

6.) Khaled Hosseini

7.) Barbra Streisand

8.) Succulents

9.) Tillandsia (air plants)

10.) The First and Second Sound Shifts

11.) Photovoltaic Cells (Solar energy production)

12.) Affordable Care Act

13.) Kirsten Gillibrand

14.) Ellen Degeneres

15.) Christkindlmarket (Chicago)

Willowwalsh (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Brainstorming Checklist:
Status of the articles in correspondence with their numerical order:

1. Article is not yet created

2. Article is locked

3. Article is not yet created; notability may be a problem

4. Article exists; a bit longer than a stub

5. Article exists; any present-day connections wouldn't be neutral (until the clause is violated, and, then, it will be contextually useful)

6. Article exists; a bit longer than a stub

7. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive

8. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive

9. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive

10. Article for both shifts exists and are comprehensive

11. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive

12. This is a good article, and it's locked

13. This is a good article

14. Article is locked

15. Article exists, but it could use some tlc

Willowwalsh (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Topic for pitch:
The Nasty Women Project

The topic is quite notable due to recent events. The project is also linked with the efforts from the Women's March on Washington which is very notable, and the availability of Women's March sources would be helpful. It's relevant to today's political hostility, and this project could, potentially, mark the beginning of several resistance projects, some of which are already underway. The movement to which this project belongs may be the pop culture spark that ignites the political spectrum for years to come. Many media sources have covered the beginning of the "nasty women" movement, and these would make great sources for providing notability at the very least. If finding sources becomes a problem, it would be easy to look into the people who support the project and who have created it. The Nasty Women project is undoubtedly feminist, and feminism could be a potential avenue for other sources. The project's relevance to pop culture could also make way for several links: feminism, the Women's March, Hillary Clinton, Emily's List, etc. The inclusion of this project on Wikipedia would help the reader to fill out the post-election resistance narrative more completely. It will be hard to be strictly neutral and non-persuasive, but I think we can do it.

Preparing to Write an Article
I looked at the Wikipedia page for the 2017 Women’s march. I like that for that page, there are separate sections for the organizers and the origins. I also liked the portion of the article dedicated to the response from the movement. There were a lot of headings, and that was somewhat overwhelming, so for ours, I think we should try to organize things in a way that is not overwhelming. They had a ton of sources, the majority of which were newspaper articles, and I think that we probably will have the same kind of sources as well. Based on my answers, here is an idea for the table of contents:

Overview (brief background and main ideas)

Background (founders (if any other than Trump muttering “nasty woman”) and reason for starting)

Beliefs (what Nasty Women fight for, and what their standard sets of beliefs are)

Support (who supports it, what celebrities have tweeted about it)

Influence (how has it been reported on and by who)

Reception by the public (who is seeing it and what are they saying about it)

Katiegraves7 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of looking at the Women's March page as well as this is the most closely related social movement to the whole "Nasty Woman" phenomenon. This page is well laid out with and broken down into various sections. I personally appreciate how much labeling and the amount of headers that are present on the page. It makes it all seem very organized and easier to read. But, in a way.. I think that the smaller headings could have been broken into their own sections to remove some of the overwhelming feelings Katie mentioned. Some of the headings included: background, prep, participation, messaging, location, etc. These sections are very informative with multiple hyperlinks to other pages. I appreciate how the article included direct quotes from the speakers, and I think we could include something similar with the reception by the public section. The majority of the citations seem to be from various news articles about the movement, and I assume we will be using the same type of information regarding the Nasty Woman Movement as well. There are also a few citations to the actual women's march on Washington's webpage. I also really liked how the article included photos of the march from the various locations.


 * Overview (brief background and reference to Trump quote)


 * Background (the early beginning of the movement/discussion of the election debate/how it became viral)


 * Beliefs ("Nasty women vote" include information/quotes from various nasty women speeches/protests)


 * Support (Clinton's views on the movement/Celebrity support)


 * Pop Culture (Various SNL skits/Memes)


 * Nasty Woman Poem (Discussion of Nina Donovan's poem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.55.198 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merchandise(discussion of the amount of shirts/pants/posters that became viral after this)


 * Reception (A section including both positive and negative views towards the movement)


 * Post-Election Influence (Info about how the movement is continuing/or not).


 * NThomps1 05:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * After doing a primary search, I stumbled upon this Nasty woman article. It is one paragraph and it describes "Nasty woman" as a phrase and not a movement. It mentions Nasty woman as the new "rallying cry" for the feminist movement. The article has a "See also" page that only links to a "List of United States political catchphrases". I looked at the 2017 Women's March page and it was very extensive. I would rather the mixture of both pages. One both concise and informative. I appreciate the organization of the Women's March page. The content boxes on the side that link to both Women's rights movement and Protests against Donald Trump are helpful as well and I think they should be included in our article too. I agree with both Katie and Nicole. The article we make should be thorough and organized.


 * My proposed categories are:


 * -Overview (general synopsis of statement and aftermath)


 * -Origin (Trump's utterance/campaign slander)


 * -Beliefs (relationship wih feminist movement and Women's Marches)


 * -Reception (aftermath and support from celebrities post-Women's Marches; subheadings include merchandise, pop culture references and partnerships)
 * Ariellet (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the Women's March page will be pertinent to constructing our page. I think we may also want to talk about how the Nasty Women project fits into the Women's movements, and, to do that, we could look at the beliefs/ goals of the Women's march organizers who were also responsible for "A Day Without Women" on International Women's Day. The question that I'd want to answer is, how does the nasty women project advance the goals of the women's movement? I think the answer to this question speaks to the topic's notability, and it lets people know that the project has a seat at the table when considering the aspirations to forward women. Another thing I think we should mention is what the project has created so far. If you follow them on Twitter or Facebook, you can see all the things they're up to. Recently, they published a book which is a collection of short stories, from women, about how the election of Donald has changed them, or altered their perspective in some way. The book is sold on Amazon and Barnes and Noble where it has 5 stars on each site. Also, all the proceeds go towards Planned Parenthood. The Nasty Women project has also extended into art exhibitions that were held around the time of the inauguration. Since the book is essentially a collection of short stories, I looked at a couple articles that were on short story books, the most helpful being The Things They Carried. The article looked at the book thematically instead of looking at the stories individually which seems like something we would do to describe the The Nasty Women Project: Voices of the Resistance book. Also, I think we're going to have to solidify what we define as the Nasty Women project, because it feels more like a movement with several branches that may only be connected through the slogan, "Nasty Women." I can look through some sources and see if any news organization has come up with a name for it (i.e. a movement, a phenomenon, etc.)

All in all, I think my subheadings would be similar to what we seem to agree on, with the addition of a section that includes the products of the project.

Overview (synopsis of what it is and who's behind it)

Origin (when did it start and, most importantly, why?)

Goals/ Beliefs (what is the purpose of the project)

Nasty Women in the women's movement (how does it fit into the feminist uprising)

The Nasty Women Project: Voices of the Resistance (The book was a main goal for the project)

Reception (how do people feel about the movement)

Support (As stated earlier, we could use Hillary, and celeb support)

Merchandise (As stated earlier, we can mention the slew of shirts/signs/mugs/bumper stickers/ etc. that are tagged with "Nasty Women")

Influence (what has it accomplished? Are people listening? Is it being reported on?)

Willowwalsh (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Willow, be sure it's not your editorial team answering the question—"how does the nasty women project advance the goals of the women's movement?"—but your editorial team summarizing how others have answered that question! Aschuet1 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Finding First Sources
'''Carothers, Cassie. "Women Reclaim 'Nasty Woman' as Their Own Rallying Cry." Global Citizen. Global Poverty Project, Inc., 21 Oct. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2017.''' -- This article provides a great overview of how the movement came about, how it spread, and its overall impact. The article was published by Global Citizen, which is part of Global Poverty Project, a decently well-known organization, from what I can tell from my research.

'''Furman, Anna. "Nasty Women Art Exhibit Aims at Taking Power Back from Trump." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 13 Jan. 2017. Web. 09 Apr. 2017.''' -- This article describes a Nasty Women art exhibit in New York. I found sources about Nasty Women art exhibits from all across the country, but those sources were published by the groups putting on the exhibits. I think we should include the fact that there have been many more exhibits besides this one in the article, I'm just not sure if the sites promoting the exhibits are considered primary sources, since they're not part of the Nasty Women Project official website, yet they clearly hold the same sentiments and are using the website to promote themselves. Brittabarre (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Emory, Sami. "The Nasty Women Exhibition Is Art's Answer to Trump's Nearing Presidency." Creators. Vice, 1 Jan. 2017. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. --This article talks about the Nasty Women art exhibit as well, but it features a interview with the project's creators! So, it could be a great source of information on the topic.


 * Wang, Steffanee. "What Does 'Nasty Woman' Merchandise Do for Feminism, Actually?" Pacific Standard. Pacific Standard, 31 Oct. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. --This article talks about the impact of purchasing "Nasty Women" merchandise. The writers asked a prominent feminist her opinion on the topic as well as her opinion on the movement as a whole.


 * Gray, Emma. "How 'Nasty Woman' Became A Viral Call For Solidarity." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Oct. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. --This provides a nice summary of how the movement became so popular and features a variety of quotes from women who have aligned themselves with the cause.


 * Nthomps1 (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * McCann, Eric, and Jonah Engal Bromwich. "'Nasty Woman' and 'Bad Hombres': The Real Debate Winners?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Oct. 2016. Web. 9 Apr. 2017. --This article gives context on the origin of the phrase and its correlation to "bad hombres". It also provides examples of people's responses to it on social media.


 * Dring, Rowena. "Nasty Women Amsterdam." HIRAETH. Hiraeth Magazine, 08 Mar. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.--This article is a great example of the Nasty Women movement becoming global. It highlights an art exhibit in Amsterdam that raised money for Planned Parenthood. Hireaeth is an Amsterdamian online magazine with galleries, articles and a podcast.
 * Ariellet (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Nasty Women Exhibition." Nasty Women : Global Art Exhibitions and Activism. Nasty Women Project, n.d. Web. -- This site is the HQ for the exhibitions that we have referenced above. It also offers a ton of resources on the "press" page, linking every single reputable site that wrote about the art exhibition. Katiegraves7 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Chan, Charmaine. "Nasty Women Project: Book Shows How Trump Galvanised an Entire Sex." South China Morning Post. South China Morning Post, 29 Mar. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017. --This is an article that summarizes the Nasty Women Project's book. It also says how the project started (A Facebook post). Not to mention, there's a statement that says the stories have an "echo-chamber quality" which, I feel, speaks to the similar emotions these women expereinced.Willowwalsh (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Kelly, Chris. "Planned Parenthood Nasty Women Have Your Back! Nasty Women Book Project Is Donating ALL Proceeds to Planned Parenthood." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 19 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017. --This article potentially puts the Nasty Women movement into perspective with the election. It also reveals the Nasty Women Project's author's motivation for starting the uprising.Willowwalsh (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Frank, Priscilla. "Nearly 700 'Nasty Women' Artists Have Teamed Up To Protest Trump." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017. --This is another article on the art exhibitions. It further explains how many participants it had, and it could, also, be used to capture public reception of the movement. Willowwalsh (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Final Page Sections

 * Overview
 * Origin
 * Reception
 * Partnerships
 * Pop Culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellet (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography
Carothers, Cassie. "Women Reclaim 'Nasty Woman' as Their Own Rallying Cry." Global Citizen. Global Poverty Project, Inc., 21 Oct. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. -- This article provides a great overview of how the movement came about, how it spread, and its overall impact. This piece could potentially be very useful in the origin, overview, and and impact categories. The source adds to the notability of the project because it was published by Global Citizen, which is part of Global Poverty Project, a decently well-known organization which focuses on today’s most important social issues. The main flaw with this article is that it does not directly mention the Nasty Woman Project itself, but the information is still useful in providing an overview of the project, as the project takes its name from this “rallying cry.”

Chan, Charmaine. "Nasty Women Project: Book Shows How Trump Galvanised an Entire Sex." South China Morning Post. South China Morning Post, 29 Mar. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017. --This is an article that summarizes the Nasty Women Project's book. It also says how the project started (A Facebook post). Not to mention, there's a statement that says the stories have an "echo-chamber quality" which, I feel, speaks to the similar emotions these women experienced. This could be a great addition to the origin section for verifiability.

Dring, Rowena. "Nasty Women Amsterdam." HIRAETH. Hiraeth Magazine, 08 Mar. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.--This article is a great example of the Nasty Women movement becoming global. It highlights an art exhibit in Amsterdam that raised money for Planned Parenthood. Hireaeth is an Amsterdamian online magazine with galleries, articles and a podcast.

Emory, Sami. "The Nasty Women Exhibition Is Art's Answer to Trump's Nearing Presidency." Creators. Vice, 1 Jan. 2017. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. --This article talks about the Nasty Women art exhibit as well, but it features an interview with the project's creators! So, it could be a great source of information on the topic. The coverage on the art exhibitions could end up telling us how people were “called to action” or the effect the movement had.

Frank, Priscilla. "Nearly 700 'Nasty Women' Artists Have Teamed Up To Protest Trump." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017. --This is another article on the art exhibitions. It further explains how many participants it had, and it could, also, be used to capture public reception of the movement. Additionally, it speaks to the notability of the event with over 700 participants!

Furman, Anna. "Nasty Women Art Exhibit Aims at Taking Power Back from Trump." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 13 Jan. 2017. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. -- This article describes a Nasty Women art exhibit in New York. I found sources about Nasty Women art exhibits from all across the country, but those sources were published by the groups putting on the exhibits. I think we should include the fact that there have been many more exhibits besides this one in the article. They clearly hold the same sentiments as the Nasty Women movement.

Gray, Emma. "How 'Nasty Woman' Became A Viral Call For Solidarity." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Oct. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. --This provides a nice summary of how the movement became so popular and features a variety of quotes from women who have aligned themselves with the cause. This could definitely play into reception of the movement and how people reacted/ participated.

Kelly, Chris. "Planned Parenthood Nasty Women Have Your Back! Nasty Women Book Project Is Donating ALL Proceeds to Planned Parenthood." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 19 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017. --This article potentially puts the Nasty Women movement into perspective with the election. It also reveals the Nasty Women Project's author's motivation for starting the uprising. This could definitely provide verifiability for our origins/ beliefs section. Also, the author had an interview with the Huffington Post which I think can go for notability.

McCann, Eric, and Jonah Engal Bromwich. "'Nasty Woman' and 'Bad Hombres': The Real Debate Winners?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Oct. 2016. Web. 9 Apr. 2017. --This article gives context on the origin of the phrase and its correlation to "bad hombres". It also provides examples of people's responses to it on social media. This would be a good source for origin.

"Nasty Women Exhibition." Nasty Women : Global Art Exhibitions and Activism. Nasty Women Project, n.d. Web. -- This site is the HQ for the art exhibitions that states how the project started, various locations of the art exhibitions, and purpose of the art exhibitions and the nasty women movement as a whole. The website also has a link to various press articles about the art exhibitions if we need to look for more information.

Vagianos, Alanna. "This 'Nasty' T-Shirt Has Raised Over $100,000 For Planned Parenthood." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Apr. 2017. --This article mentions the main nasty women shirt that celebrities like Katy Perry were wearing, and how the creator has donated over 100,000 to planned parenthood, so this would be great for pop culture and celebrity support (notability).

Wang, Steffanee. "What Does 'Nasty Woman' Merchandise Do for Feminism, Actually?" Pacific Standard. Pacific Standard, 31 Oct. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2017. --This article talks about the impact of purchasing "Nasty Women" merchandise. The writers asked a prominent feminist her opinion on the topic as well as her opinion on the movement as a whole. This source will play into our pop culture tag.

I think for the Nasty Woman hashtag, we could probably just search the hashtag on Twitter and link the results. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23nastywoman&src=tyah There are also the hastags “Nasty Women” and “Nasty Woman Project,” I don’t know if we want to include those or not. This would be a good reference for both the Origin and Overview sections, I think. I don’t know if we want to include it in our annotated bib, or cite it more briefly in the article.
 * Nasty Woman hashtag. I don’t really know how we would site that, but it is the integral part of the Nasty Women movement on social media, and has taken social media sites by storm. It has definitely made its way into the pop culture scene.

These are our best sources so far, but, as we progress in the article writing process, I’m sure we’ll have more to add, because this is a seriously notable topic as we have learned.

Drafting
Reception: Celebrities such as Katy Perry, Will Ferrell, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus have all publicly worn a "Nasty Woman" tshirt in support of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. Writers for sites such as the Huffington Post have voiced their support of the Nasty Women Project.

I have found a lot of articles about people responding to the the "nasty woman" comments on Twitter, but so far I haven't found very much about general support of the Nasty Woman Project. Brittabarre (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the Nasty Women project keeps a list of their interviews and article features on their website? I'll check on that and see what I can find. Willowwalsh (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been low-key classifying our sources on the bottom of the google doc, so we can get an idea, as a group, of which sources would be beneficial under which subheadings. *Subject to change* The good thing is that, with our existing sources, we have at least two sources for each subheading. As you can see (on the google doc), pop culture has way more sources, specifically art exhibition sources. I don't know if this would suggest that we should alter our current headings or just dig deeper to fill out the rest of the sections. Willowwalsh (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)