Talk:Shirtstorm

Saying "some women" took offence is wrong

I see you have removed "radical feminist". This is not an insulting term and also used by members of this group to describe themselves (radfems). I think It is important to keep it in, because the origin of the dispute otherwise seems to be completely random. Also this behaviour was widly denounced and saying it was just "some women" is throwing half of the worlds population under the bus (imagine saying "some -members of a big group- think its ok to do things -radical members of said group- do")you also erase male members who identify as radical feminists.

The people who were offended by the shirt were members of a certain group connected by a world-view and an ideology they share. I also think its important to keep in the "factual feminist" description of Christina Hoff Sommers who uses it herself to distance herself from the new radicals. Also Shirtstorm doesn't exist in a vacuum, so I would somehow refer to the -Gates that came before and came after this. Helester (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now changed the description back to "radical feminist" from "some people (mostly women). This is an event that has sparked on twitter if you look at the initial tweet you see there are about the same amount of men and women who agree https://twitter.com/roseveleth/status/532538957490561024 its hard to tell now because if you search for #shirtstorm you will mostly find women and men who disagree. But saying it was mostly women who took offence is an assumption and I do not think it can be hold. I have also added the description "factual Feminist" to Christina H. Sommers, I have not resolved the deleting of the other -Gates because I think it is not as distinct. Helester (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Radical feminist" is a term that doesn't exist outside of a loaded vocabulary of opprobium, and so its use is incompatible with the principles set out in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Moreover, no reliable published source has referred to those who objected to the shirt as "radical feminists", nor has any evidence been adduced that this episode has caused a backlash against "radical feminism", so the usage of these terms likewise violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. As for "factual feminist", I haven't any idea what one is or might be.

Drawing the comparison to other "-gate"s etc is a form of original research because you have drawn the parallel yourself; it isn't mentioned in the published sources. If you wish, feel free to quote someone who has likened these events to each other, or include wikilinks to the Wikipedia articles on these controversies in a "See also" section. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Most people have called the aggressors "feminist" like in this new time article http://time.com/3589392/comet-shirt-storm/ can I include this in the description? Btw a factual feminist is as far as I understand a feminist that builds their feminism on facts and not on feelings, they back up their claims. Helester (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Time column is an opinion piece, not a news story, and is seeking to propound a particular point of view on the controversy. You should be looking for how opponents are typically described in press coverage, not op-eds. Avoid characterizations and freighted language like "radical feminist" and "factual feminist" (also because in the case of the latter there is no such idiom) in favour of neutral, descriptive language. The reader should not be able to discern a "for-or-against" point of view in the article, and unfortunately your personal point of view comes through all too clearly, which it shouldn't. The article can certainly quote, in proportion (see WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight), people who are "for or against", but the article should be seeking to describe the controversy, not take a position in it. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, I now see what was wrong with my original article. I will try my best to avoid the mistakes I have made in my future work. Helester (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Actually Rrburke, you've made a few mistakes in your analysis. The TIME piece doesn't seem to be an op ed, and you saying nd is seeking to propound a particular point of view on the controversy. is a bit disengenius to how actually policy sees it. WP:BIASED. The fact that a source may be biased in one way does not equate its unreliable nature or the fact that it could be usable in its presence stance. Additionally, the fact that 'radical feminist' doesn't exist is absolutely out of the question. Radical_feminist Now the stance of it in the reliable sources is another matter which may need to be physically examined, but the term does exist and you saying it doesn't doesn't negate the fact that it does. Even so if giving you the fact that it's an op ed, it could be used by the nature of WP:RSOPINION. The fact that we should describe disputes and not engage in them however is something that I agree on. Tutelary (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Link in Christina H. Sommers' tweet is broken (cut off)

So instead of showing http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vatican-topless-femen-protestors-simulate-sex-crucifixes-while-decrying-pope-francis-1474898 it is only http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vatican-topless-femen-protestors-s I am just pointing this out, I have some but not a lot of experience volunteering for wikis or encyclopedias, so I am refraining from editing it. Jeroen52 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I have solved it. Helester (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Added references to reaction

I've added references to the reaction, to the abuse suffered by one journalist http://jezebel.com/woman-gets-death-threats-for-tweeting-about-disliking-a-1658337612 and to comments from the astronomy writer Phil Plait. I also added citations to more articles in support of Dr Taylor. I cleaned up the first paragraph which included unattributed text from a Boris Johnson column and changed the description of Dr Taylor to planetary scientist as this is more fitting than astrophysicist. Also changed medium of apology from television to webcast and added reference to the sexy but not easy comment.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked a few of your edits. Blogs and Twitter are not rs for Wikipedia, and please don't synthesize the sources. I saw you added something along the lines 'some people have been sent death threats'. When I went to the article, the headline was 'Woman sent death threats' and didn't mention any one besides her. So I've tweaked that. But otherwise, I'd say some good edits. Oh but where did you get 'planetary scientist'? Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I used planetary scientist as it describes someone who works on Solar System science as this work is often a blend of astrophysics and geology/minerology etc. Scientist is a perfectly good term. I included the wrong reference for the "sexy but not easy" statement, this is correct http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt and made a mistake saying it refered to the comment (it refers to the spacecraft). I added the ASA statement to the bit about reaction to critics but you are correct that the Jezebel article only refers to one person. I have seen more abusive posts but can't indicate that without original research. I do worry that the article lacks context as to why people were complaining (sexist culture in academia, underrepresentation of women) but it is difficult to find a source that isn't an opinion piece. Also I'm uncomfortable with the use of "abuse" in the last paragraph as this may be considered PoV.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and correct what you see are mistakes and I'll intervene if I believe that you are out of policy or guideline. WP:BOLD is a thing too. Also, seeing The Guardian source, could you quote where you are seeing this 'sexy but easy' thing? I'm simply not seeing it. Tutelary (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Urgh, too many windows open, wrong Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-science-are-annoyed-at-rosetta-mission-scientists-clothing 7th or 8th para. Given this is an opinion piece I'm uncertain how to quote it.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, made a few more minor edits to remove POV stuff and add the Guardian article (minus a direct reference to the lagnuage used). The article seems in better shape now and hopefully is less POV so I'll leave it for now. I am a tad uncomfortable with the use of the term "death threat" as the tweets do not imply the commenter is going to take action but as they are described as that in the source I will leave it for now (I don't want to use scare quotes).--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit of the "Public Apology" and the "Backlash" are extremely in favour of the radical feminist point of view. Not only was the "forced to apologise" edited out (although most references treat it that way), the sentence "Many of those who complained accepted his apology" implys Dr Taylor has made something that he needs to apologise for, a radical feminist point of view most people do not agree with, and that some people are still rightful offended. Also it is now missing that the big public Backlash was caused by Dr Taylor's apology and the anger about the bullying he has received. While the initial bullies get the first sentence of the Backlash piece pointing out how they were bullied for bulling a scientist this just doesn't make any sense. Helester (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I have seen someone removed the "forced apology" because they assumed it was a choice, most sources view this apology as a reaction to the outrage that happened before and that flooded his tweet (explaining his apology as "he was bullied into apologising"), seeing as Dr Taylor can not make a public statement before the ESA approves of this it is likely the ESA encouraged him to make the apology or at least allowed him to in case he really though his shirt was inappropriate. Either way presenting it as a choice is an admission of guilt while most people do not agree that his shirt was sexist or that there was something he had to apologise for. Helester (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed "abuse" of Taylor to "firestorm". This is what CNN a neutral website referred to it as. The only other non-opinion column I can find that refers to his treatment is the Daily Mail and Guardian using the word "furore". The person who made this edit equated one tweet using an mild insult to the hundreds of highly abusive tweets the critics of Taylor have recieved.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Worried my previous edit ignores the views of people who thought this was "abuse". Hence I have added a reference to the Boris Johnson column indicating that some saw the critics behaviour as abuse.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Rotatingastrothing As far as I know Dr Taylor received far more abuse than his bullys (according to the sources it was more than just noticeable, some described it as a "tweetstorn" of abuse). It is simply wrong to say that Dr Taylor got "one tweet using an mild insult" there was a lot of abuse going on which every source agrees, the problem is that twitter is incredibly fast and most posts towards Dr Taylor are friendly now. So we should trust the sources that all describe it as a lot of abuse. Also his bullys got abused for bullying someone and insulting someone. I dont know if his critics got abused at all as far as I know they were engaged in debates about their opinions. The abuse that Dr Taylor received was, not debatable as "justified". Criticism towards him is debatable and seen by some as justified but the abuse is not. Getting angry with people that abused and insulted others is justified and a normal reaction to injustice, until certain levels of course(death threads are ofc not and I am glad it didn't get this far). Treating the abuse Dr Taylor received equal to the abuse his abusers received is not logical or fair. Helester (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You make numerous reference to the people who criticised Taylor as "bullies" and his treatment as "abuse". Please cite a news site (not an opinion column) which states that this was abuse. I have cited three news sources (one right-wing, one neutral, one left-wing) which use furore or firestorm. These sites do not use the word abuse, this is a term used in opinion columns. The definition of abuse in this case is "cruel, violent, or unfair treatment of someone". I do not see how it is possible to use this word without it appearing that Wikipedia endorses that critics were cruel, violent, or unfair. That some commentators saw the treatment as cruel, violent, or unfair is undoubted and the article should reflect that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion --Rotatingastrothing (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I might have been not clear enough. I said we can not treat the way Dr Taylor was treated the same way Rose Eveleth was treated. (Because of the reasons I stated above) If we say she got abused we need to find a stronger word than that to describe what happened to Dr Taylor if we say Dr Taylor was "criticised" then we need to find a weaker word than that for Rose Eveleth. But right now we say she got abused and Dr Taylor got criticised and insulted, this is misleading and unfair. I think its a good desription in the last sentence "some saw as abuse" I think we can use something similar for Rose Eveleth. Helester (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah OK, that's fair. I've changed abuse to "tweets asking her to kill herself" as that is accurate and doesn't editorialise. I agree that calling these death threats is not accurate (as one editor changed them to) and I think if we use abuse anywhere it should be presented as an opinion. I think it is also fair as this shows the content of some (two) of the comments she recieved paired with the content of the insult she directed against Taylor. Note anpther editor has just removed the content of her insult as it is from Twitter which is not an RS. --Rotatingastrothing (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)