Jump to content

Talk:MeToo movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article title

@Another Believer: I wonder if there is a better title for this article- "phrase" just seems like to vague of a disambiguation. #MeToo would be an option, but there are technical limitations to having hashtags in an article title. How about Me too (social media campaign)? AdA&D 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I'm definitely not opposed to alternate disambiguators. I wasn't exactly sure what to use, but had considered Me too (hashtag). ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 Moved to "Me too (hashtag)", for now. Happy to continue discussing other options... ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hgrosser: Seems you saved your edit after I moved it to Me too (hashtag). Sorry for the edit conflict! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Other options?

Unresolved

Do MeToo, MeToo (hashtag), or Me Too (hashtag) make better titles? I'm leaning towards the first, given YesAllWomen. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


Merging into Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations instead of AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think it's too soon for an own article about this tag. Maybe it's only here for a couple of weeks. Until at least there's significant cover about the the tag, not just people using it. In this case it could deserve a spin-off article. It's also closely related to Weinstein's case.--Hofhof (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this would work well as a #MeToo or Me too (social media campaign) subheading under Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations#Reactions. AdA&D 01:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I also see no need to list users of the tag. That's a long list. Maybe the pioneers only. --Hofhof (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The dual origins of the campaign (see multiple stories on Tarana Burke's earlier advocacy of the same meme [1], [2], [3]), and the fact that it doesn't concern people revealing Weinstein's conduct (or even harassment within the entertainment industry broadly) lean against subsuming it under the Weinstein misconduct page.--Carwil (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
But it still has not notability on its own. So, it should be mentioned there, since it's related to Weinstein, but this article should probably be deleted. Hofhof (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. Not notable on its own, but worthy of including there as part of the response. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Right now, there's plenty of independent coverage of #MeToo, much of which mentions the Weinstein allegations. So the line we're walking is between notable as a reaction, and independently notable. Frankly, it could be too soon to tell… but I would suggest that should it not be independently notable that the relevant place to merge is some not-yet-created article that also includes YesAllWomen or to Hashtag activism. That said, it would be better to wait 48 hours and find out if the coverage demonstrates independent notability.--Carwil (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not about the usage of random people on Facebook but what the reliable sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur that there should be a section in Weinstein article about #MeToo as to what relates to him on hashtag MeToo. After all the Weinstein case did have a great influence on launching the hashtag. But still MeToo should have its own page as well, as a relevant independent article in iteself werldwayd (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you share your idea of what notability would entail for this article? It has been covered by several major media sources, from the New York Times to the Washington Post and news networks including CNN and NBC. Plenty more major networks are listed in the references section; I'm wondering what else it would take to achieve notability in your view? - Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There's already a list of those who Harvey sexually harassed on the article for the scandal. This internet movement might had been started because of the scandal, but this is mainly for others who say they had been harassed, moested, or raped by other power players in the industry. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. It's independently notable and distinct from Weinstein. Editor-1 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge This is very important as a cultural development against harassment and has the coverage needed, and it's not just Weinstein so a merge wouldn't be suitable.♦Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge This is a movement that started from Weinstein, but became so huge, that it needs a standalone page. It is not about Weinstein anymore, but is about the "normality" of sexual harassment of women. It is much more important than a Hollywood mogul's humiliation.♦cris_utza (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge #metoo has been at the heart of e.g. Swedish public debate the last week – not Weinstein, but the people in Swedish media who have now been likewise accused of sexual misconduct. In the US, I'm sure Weinstein is large than #metoo. In some other parts of the world, #metoo is larger than Weinstein. /Julle (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There is clearly not consensus to merge this article. Can an admin close this discussion? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just been bold and removed the merge tag (with an edit summary to say why). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability tag?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved

Any opposition to removing the notability tag? There is already a merge tag, and so far editors think the topic is noteworthy enough to include in the encyclopedia in some way, but not necessarily as a standalone article. Seems like an unnecessary tag at this point, or perhaps there is another one that can encourage expansion without questioning notability? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the article still does not pass a notability test (reliable sources). Some editors believe it is/could/will be important, but it could also disappear as fast as it appear (in a matter of hours). Given it a chance before it's merged or kept is a fair alternative to me. --Hofhof (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh, I disagree, as there are plenty of reliable sources specifically about this campaign, but I'll leave the tag alone for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
CNN, NBC, LA Times, New York Times, NPR, The Guardian, The BBC, Time Magazine... what's left, at this point? :) Seems to have reached durable notability already. Owlsmcgee (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it may have not been obviously notable when tagged but these things move fast. Unless someone can state a good reason for leaving the tag, I'd ask the next editor who reads here to remove it. Of course the article will still need maturing. - phi (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple editors now advocating for the tag's removal, but I am not comfortable removing the tag since I created this article. Will someone else do the honor? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Since I tagged the article, I suppose there's nothing better than me to remove the tag. At least for now.Hofhof (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Illustration?

Is there any illustration that could be added to this article? YesAllWomen has one... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

How would we go about getting permission for outtaking a still of Tarana Burke in a pink-on-black "me too" T-shirt being interviewed by Amy Goodman, if editors like that idea for an illustration? - phi (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I added an image of Alyssa Milano, for now, but I am open to other illustration options. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is the kind of thing I had in mind. Will fair use allow us to use it? - phi (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I made a comment on the image, but Democracy Now claims on this interview link to share its content under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia, I'm afraid. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
And could it become appropriate if I requested and got DN's permission? - phi (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You could, yes - here are some guidelines that could be useful. Good luck! - Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: We could use the screenshot from Charles Clymer, if it is below Threshold of originality. Milano used the screenshot in her Tweet.[4] --212.95.5.208 (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

More sources

Integrated? Source
? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/me-too-lets-men-off-the-hook_us_59e4e3a2e4b04d1d518390d2
? http://www.npr.org/2017/10/16/558165331/in-the-wake-of-harvey-weinstein-scandal-women-say-metoo
? http://time.com/4985787/me-too-sexual-harassment-men-reaction/
? http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/10/17/why_the_metoo_moment_is_liberating_dispiriting_and_uncomfortable_all_at.html
? https://www.democracynow.org/2017/10/17/meet_tarana_burke_the_activist_who
? https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/celebrities/me-too-alyssa-milano-elevates-harvey-weinstein-conversation/2017/10/18/d123a126-b3ba-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html
? http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/us/me-too-tarana-burke-origin-trnd/index.html
? https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/when-scientists-say-me-too/
not yet The #MeToo Moment https://nyti.ms/2kdktVH

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(Just noting changes made to this section, not by me. Thanks.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article should be changed to focus on the "Me too movement"

For example, Black Lives Matter started as a hash tag, but the article is about the movement that sprung up around it. It should be something similar in this article too. I don't think much would have to be changed besides the first line of the lede. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 07:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brightgalrs: So, Me too (movement)? MeToo also redirects to Me too (hashtag), so that's another option. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a little too soon, in my opinion. Maybe a redirect, but right now the movement is the hashtag. If we see even one rally or other kind of mass mobilization I'd say it's a movement. For now, the hashtag is most relevant. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
How could you possibly think that the movement behind the hashtag isn't notable, but the hashtag itself is? You have the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 01:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Because I don't agree that there is a "movement" behind the hash tag. A movement is literally "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas." Right now there is no coordinated "movement," there are people acting on their own to speak up. Are there any notable sources, at all, talking about MeToo beyond the impact of the hashtag? Black Lives Matter was also both, but turned into rallies and actions. MeToo hasn't reached that point yet. When it does, I'll be delighted, and delighted to endorse changing the name of this article. - Owlsmcgee (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a specific definition of "movement". All I mean is the meaning behind the hashtag should be the focus of the article, and the hashtag should be secondary. The lede of this article is currently (paraphrasing) "#MeToo is a hashtag that denounces sexual assault..." when it should be something like "Me too is a trend that denounces sexual harassment, it uses the #MeToo hashtag...". It's a small change, but I think gives better context to the entire article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not a specific definition of movement, it's the definition of movement. MeToo is best defined by the hashtag because that's what it currently is. Once it comes out in some other context, it can claim to go beyond the hashtag. That hasn't happened yet, at least not in notable sources. We are on the same side, I just don't understand the hurry. - Owlsmcgee (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, the Black Lives Matter is a US thing. The #metoo campaign is international; any focus on a movement will probably risk losing that aspect. /Julle (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Time Magazine referred to #MeToo as a movement when #MeToo was mentioned as a candidate for Person of the Year 2017. http://time.com/5045719/time-person-of-the-year-2017-shortlist/?xid=homepage70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

a danish director

user:Another Believer, you flabbergast me. the only thing björk is "clearly referring" to is "a danish [film] director". WP:BLP states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that[...] is a conjectural interpretation of a source." are you sure you disagree?

(factual mentions of "notable people who have been accused" can be found here & here.) k kisses 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of in agreement here. We don't list the accused in the list for anyone else, and LVT has denied it. I leave it to you user:Another Believer, but going strictly by policy, I think there's something amiss about how it's handled at the moment. That said, I did include the Crystal Castles claim, so maybe that is amiss of WP:BLP as well. I'm careful with the word "allege" and the allegation is widely reported. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think notable people accused by other notable people are worth including, but if others disagree, I understand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the commentary about Lars von Trier makes the list of #MeToo participants look untidy. The reference links will help readers know that Bjork was referencing him anyway.

Another Believer there's now a section in "aftermath" that lists people who have been accused. While this might run afoul of BLP (I'll let others weigh in), for the time being, maybe a good compromise is to add the LVT allegation to that list? -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
my main objection was to the misrepresentation of björk's statements. if it is to be included here - which makes more sense now - it should be clear that she hasn't explicitly named anyone. that said, there may be other concerns about when and how to name the accused - i don't really know. -- k kisses 14:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the article saying that Bjork does not mention Lars von Trier by name, but plenty of sources have mentioned who she is referencing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Mention of Lars von Trier?

So, currently the article does not mention Lars von Trier in any capacity. Is this what we think is best? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so. While it may seem "obvious" that she's referring to von Trier, the fact of the matter is that she has made several motion pictures, such as music videos, TV movies, etc. Unless she specifically clarifies that it was von Trier, everyone is simply guessing.
I mean, she accuses him without using his name, but multiple sources mention von Trier:
etc, etc, etc. In my opinion, not mentioning his name in some way should be considered a content gap. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
One solution is to report that the press widely associated the allegation with Lars Von Trier, who issued a denial. This is factually accurate, sourced, and neutral in that it doesn't force us to interpret Bjork's allegations. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
See WP:WELLKNOWN for a pretty exact template: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Owlsmcgee: I'm totally fine with your proposed text. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer:: Great. I'll let you tackle the specifics you see fit. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Owlsmcgee: I already proposed wording for the article, and other editors took issue, so I'll let someone else add a sentence or two. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

All of this is on Bjork's and von Trier's Wikipedia pages anyway. Mentioning this conjecture only clutter's this page, which is about a wider social issue than just two individuals.

Clutter? Mentioning this accusation will not clutter the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I get that you want to white knight for Bjork, but again Bjork herself has not actually named von Trier. If it'll assuage you, add von Trier to the Aftermath list but please make note that Bjork hasn't actually named him yet. All those other sources you listed are just speculating.

I am a Bjork fan, but that has nothing to do with why I think the names of notable accusers and accused should appear in this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If you read the sources that you posted, you'll see that their language usually involves "it is believed" or "supposedly". Again, Bjork has not actually flat out said, "It was Lars von Trier."

You've made your point, and I'm not opposed to using similar wording in the article's prose. We've been over this already. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you didn't just add his name to the Aftermath section, but I did it so that you'd let this go.

Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Do you care to contribute to this discussion since you mentioned mention of Lars von Trier? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that per WP:BLP we should not report mere "speculation". We work with facts, not rumors.  Sandstein  22:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sandstein: Alright, well, even the Lars von Trier article mentions Bjork's allegations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Names in "Aftermath" section

Should only notable people (aka people with Wikipedia articles) be mentioned here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, we should refrain from naming non-notable people, specifically per WP:BLPCRIME which states "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. A conviction is secured through judicial proceedings; accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN." -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole section is currently a BLP violation because it's assumed that all the names are guilty of what they've been accused. It doesn't even say what they've been accused of beyond "inappropriate behavior". I'd be in favor of having a table of names with brief descriptions of these accusations. FallingGravity 05:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

...which is why all of the names are followed by reference links. Moreover, no assumption of guilt is made. (However, many of these people have either apologized or been fired.)

@DocStrange, I feel that your changes to several of the individuals' professions should be changed back to "filmmaker". I know it's rather generic, but those people mostly do more than just one type of job. For example, Ben Affleck may be primarily known as an actor, but most of his film awards are for writing, producing, and directing.

RE: Peyton Manning -- not sure if we should include him. The allegations are from the same person who accused him a long time ago before #MeToo. The "new" accusations are essentially about the two of them arguing semantics (more of a legal matter than anything else). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.227.232 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Moreover, no assumption of guilt is made." No, this list is clearly guilt by association, lumping people accused of inappropriate behavior with accused rapists. Also, some of these people have denied these allegations while others have admitted them. FallingGravity 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
MeToo isn't just about rape.

So should we removed all people from the list who do not have their own Wikipedia articles? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, while some of them don't have Wikipedia articles, they're still public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, notability is a good criteria for inclusion, especially for one with BLP implications. FallingGravity 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This is really backwards thinking. Instead of deleting these names, which FallingGravity just did, the better course of action would be to create pages for these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

People don't become notable because they're accused of sexually harassing other people, per WP:BLP1E. Maybe some of these people deserved to have their own article before they were accused. Those articles should be created, and then their names should be added according to WP:LISTPEOPLE. FallingGravity 18:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. These are people who are in positions of power or have considerable professional achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Btw, some of these people do have Wikipedia pages, just not on the English site (for example, Gijs van Dam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Revert

@FallingGravity: Looks like your work to remove the names of non-notable people, which I agreed with, was reverted... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

They're not "non-notable", they just don't have Wikipedia pages created for them yet. These are all public figures who have been mentioned in articles published by reputable news organizations.

The relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:LISTPEOPLE:
A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:
FallingGravity 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and again, just because a person doesn't have a Wikipedia page about them doesn't make them "non-notable". On a related note, I created a page for Tarana Burke, who actually created the term "Me Too", but it's been left in "draft" status. Does this mean that Burke is "non-notable"? Of course not.

Even people who do have articles might not be notable. For this reason, we have to start with the assumption that all people who don't have their own articles aren't notable. If an article is created and deleted, then it can be added and removed from the list. FallingGravity 20:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a separate and unrelated problem.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's a problem that's directly related to all the "notability" claims you're making. FallingGravity 20:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doc Strange: Seems we need some additional opinions here. Do you have any thoughts re: inclusion of names of people without their own Wikipedia articles? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that individuals who do not have an article, but whose name could be pointed to another article - say a member of a band with an article or someone who founded/created something with an article (like the Screen Junkies guy) - could probably stay, but those who cannot could be removed. For instance, that would mean losing names like Kirt Webster or Dave Becky (who were directly connected to people with articles; A lot of the names that would go, it seems, are going to be talent agents or managers) or Alex Calder (who probably met notability standards before this and should have an article), but if you want to limit names to specific, noteworthy people, that would be my idea on how. I'm mostly basing that idea on which names without articles stay in the Deaths in 2017 series of articles at the end of every month. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 00:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Doc Strange, I like what you wrote as it at least finds a way to demonstrate how some of the listed people have a public impact. However, how could a list like this not include people such as Patricia Glaser and Eric Monier? Glaser not only behaved both unethically and discriminatorily (against another woman, no less) in a sexual harassment case many years ago, she also happens to be one of Harvey Weinstein's lawyers right now. Monier was an editorial director at France 2, one of France's public TV channels. A blanket dismissal of people w/o Wikipedia pages is absurd. As awesome as Wikipedia is, Wikipedia is not a comprehensive database of all the "notable" people on this planet.70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, let's make exceptions for the people like Glaser because she "really deserves it". No, it isn't our job to determine that. Also, according to Doc Strange's criteria, Monier would stay because of his connection to France 2. For the time being I'll remove names using Doc's suggested method. FallingGravity 20:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Glaser is a high-profile lawyer who is considered a "super lawyer" by members of her profession. [5] I don't want to include her on the list as a form of vendetta but for the sake of completeness -- which by the way, is one of the exemptions allowed under the BLP policy. Her name was explicitly mentioned in the article about how a lawsuit against Brad Grey and Garry Shandling was handled by two lawyers -- Robert Shapiro and yes, Patricia Glaser.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Based on that argument, it sounds like Glaser could meet the notability standards for her own article. There's certainly plenty of sources from the past few weeks to build one. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The exemption would also cover Dezso Magyar, since he was the instructor who actually harassed the student who accused the AFI of getting her to leave the school.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doc Strange: Btw, in his zeal to be "Wikipedia-complete", FallingGravity also deleted Alex Calder. The fact that he was actually signed to a music label (as opposed to an amateur musician waiting to be discovered) was enough to make him notable, as you mentioned.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

How about we create the articles before adding them to the list. We can't just make random exemptions based on a person's unproven but alleged notability. I would even be happy to add the name if the article is a stub. The point is, the existence of an article is the only way Wikipedians can assert or challenge the subject's notability. FallingGravity 21:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I've submitted a page for Dezso Magyar for approval. During the next couple of days, I'll create a page for Patricia Glaser. In the meantime, please take this into consideration -- Glaser and Robert Shapiro are PARTNERS in their law firm, GLASER Weil Fink Howard Avchen & SHAPIRO LLP.70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
+1. I agree with FallingGravity here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, are you willfully ignoring what's being written here? I submitted a page for Magyar. Furthermore, he's actually mentioned in several articles on Wikipedia. You bounce around gleefully deleting information with a "Who dat?" comment w/o paying attention, so you ended up having to revert one of your own edits! Stephen Blackwell was a high-ranking executive at Billboard magazine -- a source that is cited frequently on Wikipedia! I've actually requested administrators to lock the page again because of you.70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
lol, ok... Yes, I decided to revert my own edit since the individual was at least associated with a notable company, but I stand by my other removals. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
And thank you for requesting page protection. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What is your obsession with pervasive destruction of content???70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not hard. This list needs to only mention notable people. If someone is notable, and they don't have an article, then create a stub, then add their name back. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Tarana Burke

See also: Draft:Tarana Burke

I feel it would be relevant/covering the bases to include a picture of Tarana Burke in the "Criticism" section.

(Also, maybe someone should start a page for her?)

Well, I just submitted a draft page for approval.

I added Draft:Tarana Burke as a "see also" link above for easy access. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I had to press the Submit button one more time, which I did today. The article was approved today as well. Yay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Aftermath"

What are the criteria for inclusion in the "Aftermath" section? Allegations will continue to be made until the end of time, so what's the cut off, or how do we keep this section specific to "me too" in order for the article to stay on topic? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a good question, so maybe end of the year, 31 December 2017? Btw, someone just removed the sentences about Lars Von Trier.

But that seems arbitrary. This article is about me too, not people who were accused of sexual misconduct in 2017 following the Harvey Weinstein scandal. And thanks for the heads up re: von Trier. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but look at what Uma Thurman just said -- she'll talk about sexual harassment/assault when she's ready to talk about it. This implies that she has either stories or accusations to share, and her statement was prompted by the #MeToo movement. It's obvious that many people are still working up their courage after being inspired by #MeToo, but it takes time for people to gather their thoughts, calm their emotions, and prepare lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Delete all figures unrelated to the hashtag. Keep the rest. Ꞷumbolo 07:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This aftermath section is getting ridiculous. This should ONLY be tied to figures who were outed in the #metoo campaign. It's hard to fathom how someone like Val Kilmer, accused of pushing someone too hard in an audition (which everyone who was there says wasn't true anyways) being linked in with rapists. Donmike10 (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Donmike10: This is per the linked article -- "Former actress Caitlin O’Heaney broke her NDA to speak out about what she says was a violent attack by Val Kilmer while she was auditioning for the Pamela Courson role in Oliver Stone’s “The Doors.” According to BuzzFeed News, O’Heaney, who starred in the 1982 ABC series “Tales of the Gold Monkey,” found the courage to talk about being allegedly assaulted by Kilmer after seeing so many actresses and former assistants come forward about their experiences with studio head Harvey Weinstein. “Women have come together, saying, ‘We’re not going to be fucked by you,’” O’Heaney said." Btw, being punched in the face is not the same as being pushed.

Re: Donald Trump -- Please stop adding him to the list until there is a new allegation post-October 2017. Although many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, that's due to the current news cycle and does not mean that they are actually connected! The allegations were made against him prior to Weinstein/#MeToo. Furthermore, there's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to allegations against Trump. If this is your hobby, make updates there, not here.

Sounds like you have just admitted the sources connect it to Trump. Q.E.D. Game, set, match, friend. You lose. Peacebroker (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC) account is a blocked sock of Kingshowman

You obviously have reading comprehension problems: "The allegations were made against him prior to Weinstein/#MeToo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Donald Trump -- look at the page dedicated solely to Trump's sexual misconduct allegations. The most-recent allegations were made in 2016. There's nothing new! Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

:: That's specious reasoning. By your logic, we should delete the Harvey Weinstein allegations from this page, since there is "already a page for that" and the Weinstein allegations have been around for years. What part of "the sources themselves have drawn the connection between #MeToo/the Weinstein furore and the Trump allegations of sexual assault against 16 different women, including asking him about it at the White House on October 16, 2017" is it that you're having trouble understanding? Just because YOU idiosyncratically think it "isn't related" is of no interest to anyone who isn't you. Every one of the sources I cited specifically drew the connection, and yet you keep sitting here bloviating about how "it isn't related, there are no new allegations" as if anyone possibly gives a shit about your personal opinion about what relates to what. The sources say it relates; this is governing, not whatever moronic personal views help you to sleep at night. Show me a source supporting your opinion that the two events "have no relation" and I might actually care what you say have to say. "Reading comprehension" my ass; YOU, my friend, are the one who was unable to divine from the sources I provided you that EVERY single one connected the recent subpoena of Trump and the questioning at the White House IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS TO THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS. Your view that this is "just a coincidence" is of no possible interest to anyone who isn't you. Peacebroker (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC) account is a blocked sock of Kingshowman

Actually, Harvey Weinstein is not listed in the Aftermath section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

:: Touche. But I'd imagine he is in the article. Point being, you believe that the Trump subponea of October 15, 2017 had "no connection" to the Weinstein allegations. That's nice. Tell your family at Thanksgiving. The sources say otherwise. You haven't dealt with that point, and you effectively admitted it: "many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, that's due to the current news cycle and does not mean that they are actually connected." We aren't interested in your views on what is connected to what. You admit the sources have stated the subpoena is connected to the Weinstein alelgations. That's more than sufficient to include him in the article. Peacebroker (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) account is a blocked sock of Kingshowman

People still ask Roman Polanski and Samantha Geimer about him raping her. This doesn't make it a new allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Btw, in case you're unaware, subpoenas are frequently fishing expeditions. The side serving the subpoena doesn't exactly know what evidence exists, and it's not unusual for subpoenas to result in no new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Over at the "Weinstein effect" article, I've proposed that the "Background" section be merged into the "Aftermath" section here. We could even re-name the "Aftermath" section as the "Weinstein effect" section. Otherwise, that article is fairly pointless. Even people who visit/edit there regularly are dubious of its utility, and outside of Wikipedia, I've never heard of anyone referring to these events as the "Weinstein effect" (not even by news media).70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong track/field athlete Lui Lai-Yiu just posted a #MeToo reference on her Facebook page. Again, the aftereffects of #MeToo are still percolating throughout the world. https://www.facebook.com/laiyiului/ https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20171130/57522123 I wish some of the people following/editing this article would realize that it takes time for individuals to muster the courage to gather their thoughts about awful events and to articulate those thoughts.03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

List of local alternative hashtags

Delete the section and consider converting some sourced examples to prose and move into "International response" section. The list is currently indiscriminate, unreferenced and potentially incomplete. Ꞷumbolo 08:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 November 2017

In the "Origin" section, unlink EL from "article" and "piece" and put a reference at the end of that line for this URL. Ꞷumbolo 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 November 2017

Add following person to aftermath:

Anonymous complaints arrived for Bart De Pauw, explicitly mentioning the #MeToo movement as the reason why the accusers decided to make the complaints. Bart De Pauw is a televisionmaker, public figure and actor. The national television shut down cooperation with him after 30 years of making television. StevenRoose (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "VRT breekt volledig met Bart De Pauw na beschuldigingen van grensoverschrijdend gedrag en seksuele intimidatie". standaard.be. October 20, 2017. Retrieved November 13, 2017.
  2. ^ "Vrouwen doorbreken de stilte". standaard.be. October 20, 2017. Retrieved November 13, 2017.
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability of tweeters vs. random cutoff date

Nowhere does this article state that it cuts off at October 15th, but since the tweets (and non-Twitter responses on fb) keep rolling in a month later you will need to address this. E.g. I was looking for the response by Diana Nyad and couldn't find it. Jane (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Shortly after [...] accused": BLP concern

The phrase, "Shortly after the allegations against Harvey Weinstein broke, the following public figures have also been accused of inappropriate behavior (including but not limited to harassment or assault)" can be read to imply that the listed figures were not previously accused of "inappropriate behaviour". Never mind the fact that "inappropriate behaviour" could include a lot of things that are of no relevance to the Me Too hashtag (e.g. throwing bottles in a river), the list includes several individuals that were previously accused of relevant transgressions, such as Bill O'Reilly (2004 and 2016), "Larry" Nassar (2016), and Roman Polanski (1977, 2010, and at various times during 2017). On this basis, I would urge editors to either diligently check that only individuals are listed to whom the statement unambiguously applies, or, if there is clear and direct relevance but the statement is not literally true, to clarify appropriately. Samsara 12:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you feel that for the sake of conciseness, we should only list people who had never faced such allegations prior to October 2017? I debated this myself when I added Roman Polanski and a few others to the list. With regards to Larry Nassar, he's currently in jail for possession of child pornography. The molestation allegations are new.70.112.229.80 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I just clarified the sentence regarding "inappropriate behavior" to the following -- "Shortly after the allegations against Harvey Weinstein broke, the following public figures have also been accused of inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature (including but not limited to harassment, assault, etc.) or gender discrimination:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% on board with this writing, as this article is not merely highlighting accusations of sexual harassment or assault after Harvey Weinstein (we have Weinstein effect for that, but should be highlighting those who have been accused with a specific, explicit connection to the MeToo hashtag. That means finding accusations that came attached to the hashtag, or that directly link motivations of publicizing the accusation to the hashtag's effect or popularity. Furthermore, that means that articles where a journalist or op-ed columnist links charges of harassment or assault to the MeToo hashtag are not enough. The alleged victims need to make that explicit in their own words or statements. What does everyone think? -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Then you must make that explicit in the phrasing of the introductory sentence. Under the usual rules of causality, an event can only influence other events occurring AFTER it. As examples, the O'Reilly and Polanski allegations were not uniquely made "shortly after" either the Weinstein allegations OR the hashtag, or uniquely made in connection with either. There may be other similar examples in the list. If the introductory sentence can't be changed, the entries need to go. I don't care which solution gets implemented (change the sentence or change the entries). Samsara 07:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yet clearly there were new allegations by different women against Polanski (they just happened to be the same crimes, statutory rape/assault/pedophilia). Many felt courage to speak up only after MeToo gained critical mass even if they accused people who had already been accused prior to October 2017.70.112.229.80 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this written by Owlsmcgee: "Furthermore, that means that articles where a journalist or op-ed columnist links charges of harassment or assault to the MeToo hashtag are not enough." This is why I removed names such as Peyton Manning, David O. Russell, Donald Trump, etc. As Samsara stated, causal links require the effect to take place after the cause (i.e. MeToo).70.112.229.80 (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I made more changes to the intro statement.70.112.229.80 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I just added a quote and reference pertaining to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's public statements regarding sexual misconduct and the "Me Too" movement. She gives credit to "Me Too" for encouraging and mobilizing people to speak up against such behavior. This happened on November 16. It's clear that "Me Too" is still a motivating factor in people coming forward when they had previously thought that no one would listen to them.70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

International hashtags

Perhaps the many hashtags mentioned in the "List of local alternative hashtags" section could be converted to a floating quote box, or similar? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re: specific individuals

There is disagreement about who should be included in the "Aftermath" section. The following subsections are for discussing the appropriateness of mentioning people without Wikipedia articles of their own. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes to ALL of the above since ref links have been provided. The sources all make clear that these were individuals with power and discretion over the accusers, usually in terms of work, prospective employment, or substantive matters, such as lawsuits regarding employment, academic standing, etc. Wiki users have been very good about deleting personal attacks and unsubstantiated rumors. Furthermore, the BLP policy has a COMPLETENESS EXEMPTION.70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Generally the completeness in WP:LISTPEOPLE refers to a well-defined list where omitting certain people would leave the list lacking. In this case, the list is pretty arbitrary in the names that could be added. If my high school coach gets accused of sexual harassment tomorrow and it's covered in the local newspaper, then the list wouldn't be "incomplete" without him. FallingGravity 05:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Blackwell

Should this article mention Stephen Blackwell? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on: [6] 70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe it should link to SpinMedia instead of Billboard. FallingGravity 08:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex Gilady

Should this article mention Alex Gilady? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Patricia Glaser

Should this article mention Patricia Glaser? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

David Guillod

Should this article mention David Guillod? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Vincent Ingenito

Should this article mention Vincent Ingenito? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Kramer

Should this article mention Andrew Kramer? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Knight Landesman

Should this article mention Knight Landesman? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Malka

Should this article mention Tyler Malka? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jason Mojica

Should this article mention Jason Mojica? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Eric Monier

Should this article mention Eric Monier? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ian Prior

Should this article mention Ian Prior? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Adam Venit

Should this article mention Adam Venit? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Tony Villani

Should this article mention Tony Villani? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Matt Zimmerman

Should this article mention Matt Zimmerman? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

MeToo Center not a RS

I have twice removed a section about the MeToo Center website: "In November 2017 MeToo.center became the central database for people to add and edit #MeToo stories about predators. The website is Wiki based to promote democratic contributions and edits." User:FallingGravity has also removed it. I have also removed it from the Alyssa Milano article.

Wikis and crowdsourced websites are never RS here. If this persists, we'll have to blacklist their website AND block those who keep restoring it. Pinging User:2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B2 User:2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:96 User:98.173.108.220 -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Origin

jammerbirdi here.

I'm very sorry to report that I've run afoul of the rule regarding making edits on material that relates directly to oneself. I've done that and I'd like to apologize to everyone who assiduously maintains the information on this #metoo Wikipedia entry.

One reason I wasn't aware that I'd made that error is that my initial edit here was allowed and stayed in the record for at least the last two weeks. It was regarding a reader on the New York Times writing under the username 'jammer' (me) in the comments section of the Lena Dunham piece suggesting that women who had been the victim of sexual predation in the entertainment industry might come forward and simply say, "Me, too." (I provided a link to that article but one must search through the comments because as far as I know the Times doesn't allow for linking directly to a user's comment.)

Here is most of I wrote there on Oct. 10, the day after Lena Dunham's op-ed was published, five days after the Weinstein scandal broke, and at least four days prior to Alyssa Milano's tweet suggesting the use of the now very famous hashtag.

jammer los angeles October 10, 2017

Taking this to Harvey's extremes, focusing only on a hugely powerful guy engaged in completely outrageous behavior, would be a case of not seeing the forest for one massive rotting tree stump. 

Men control the short and long-term career opportunities of thousands of the most desirable women on earth in what must be the most glamorous and lucrative career environment in human history, as has been the case for almost a century. 

Are we really going to be concerned only about the most salacious and outrageous stories? About the one or a half dozen men who take things too far? 

Because that has not been the story of Hollywood in this area and it shouldn't be the general public's take away this time. Know this. Behind the literal and metaphorical gates of those studios is a world beyond the reach of laws protecting women against all forms of workplace sexual misconduct and the result is as predictable as human nature itself.

Here's what really needs to happen now. Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, "Me, too."


The reason I'm unsure of exactly how many days difference there was between when I submitted my comment, even when it was published by the Times, and Alyssa Milano's tweet, is the Times often doesn't post comments until hours (days even) after they've been submitted, and they don't offer a time stamp either.

Anyway, unaware that I'd broken a rule I decided last night to add my real name to the edit I'd made. The decision to even do that was agonizing. But anyway, I think that might be two rules broken as I don't handily have a way of verifying that the name I posted, my own, and 'jammer' are one and the same person. I really don't know how that might be easily be resolved either and for most of the last few weeks I've actually been fairly happy that I didn't use my real name on the Times' comment.

What I think is important always is that any piece of history is presented with all the information and accuracy as is possible. So that is the reason behind the two edits I've made here in the last few weeks. There are holes in this origin story as it is presented here and some unconnected dots. I'm as aware of that as I am due to the fact that I am one of those dots. But I see now that it isn't my responsibility or even my right to add content to the record here. I understand that and accept it. But the edit regarding the Dunham comment that stood for the last couple weeks IS verifiable and I'm assuming that it was verified if it was allowed to stand given even the scrutiny and devotion to this entry by those of you who manage and oversee the information here.

So I would hope that in that devotion to as much correct information as can be added to the knowledge base around anything warranting a Wikipedia page that the initial edit I'd made regarding my comment to the Dunham piece would be restored. It's easily verifiable, if you don't mind scrolling through 800 or so subsequent comments.

As I said to the editor who removed my edits, in the long run, what's important is that there is now a movement that allows women to add their voice and experiences to the record. But Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia, is about spot-on accurate information and unvarnished detail. As a person who has been watching this entire global phenomenon for the last month with a weird mix of awe, satisfaction, and also, at times, abject terror (because I don't know what no-good-deed-goes-unpunished horror story might come from any of this) I nevertheless feel somewhat expectant and even responsible that the information on this Wikipedia page to be accurate and true.

But I am done. Best of luck to you all in searching for and providing the most accurate and verifiable information and chronology on this very important subject. The facts are out there. I hope they all end up here.

Again, I meant no disrespect and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding (on my part.)

Thank you,

donald barnat

Jammerbirdi (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

jammer, you're basically trying to take credit for starting the #MeToo campaign. Please stop your self-aggrandizement.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You're also running afoul of no original research. You would have to use an independent second or tertiary RS which states that you were the originator. Then, to not run afoul of conflict of interest, you'd have to get someone else here to add that content. Can you do any of that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone would have to be able to prove that Alyssa Milano actually saw his "comment" and said, "What a great idea!" I think not.70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

first, responding to 70.112.229.80 What I tried to do was make sure that the Wikipedia entry for #metoo contained accurate and complete information when as it applies to the origin section. you have accused me of spamming, self-aggrandizement, self-serving, and having delusions of grandeur. I'm not trying to take credit for starting the #metoo movement. That's not ultimately for me to judge. I was only trying to place into the record that 5 days prior to A. Milano's tweet calling for the use of 'me too' that someone had already done that on the New York Times website in the comments section of the Dunham piece. That someone posted under the username 'jammer'. Those are facts. They are verifiable by any of you if you are interested in establishing the most accurate information and having that information be a part of Wikipedia's entry on #metoo. Whether or not I am the person who posted that idea under the name 'jammer' is, as I admit earlier in this conversation, something I can't offer some easy proof of. But I realize now that, as a person who has possibly played a role in this, I shouldn't be here participating in the editing of an online encyclopedia.

I pointed out to you yesterday that Alyssa Milano had herself tweeted 24 hours after her hashtag call/tweet that she had JUST learned of another earlier me too movement. That tweet or its implications is not in the record here. It's not coming from me. I only passed it on to you. Your response was this.

"It's been well-documented that Burke used the term "Me Too" long before Milano, regardless of whether or not Milano had heard about it. The world doesn't revolve around Milano's cognizance."

This last sentence indicates, IMO, that you have an agenda to minimize even Milano's role in starting the me too movement as it exists at this moment. But Milano's own tweet indicates that she'd never heard of Burke's earlier movement. So what is happening here is that an anonymous editor who has an bias for a certain narrative is responding very negatively toward any new or unnoticed information that runs counter to that agenda. That's not my problem. That's Wikipedia's problem.

BullRangifer. Thanks for your response. I've run afoul of more rules than I can keep track of. Again, I'm sorry about that. As a person who is at this point struggling to process what has happened in the last month, it's obvious that, as a newbie to Wikipedia and its time-tested conventions for accumulating accurate information, coming here and just attempting to edit the entry with more complete information was not the right course for me to take. At this point I'll repeat that I only hope that you all here maintain a fervent desire for the truth and the most accurate and complete telling of this important now historic moment and that experienced seasoned Wikipedia editors take what I've said and run down the facts and present them here where they most certainly belong.


Thank you all again,

ETA: RE this: Someone would have to be able to prove that Alyssa Milano actually saw his "comment" and said, "What a great idea!" I think not.[[Special:Contributions/70.112.229.80

You completely dismissed Milano's own tweet that indicates that she only learned of Tarana Burke's me too movement the day after she'd called for the use of the hashtag, characterizing your thought on that as "the world doesn't revolve around Milano's cognizance." The writer Joan Didion talks about this in her books as the tendency to ignore facts and that which is observable in favor of a narrative that is more satisfactory or one that simply 'plays better.' Yesterday you deleted from this entry information that was not only verifiable by the following of a link and scrolling through a NYTimes' comments section, but information that would have had to have ALREADY been verified by editors here for it to have been allowed to remain in the entry for something like two weeks.

One thing I don't blame you for is meeting all of this with profound skepticism. Although you really could lose the scornful presentation for something more inquisitive and mature. If you think the notion that I might actually be a person who played such a key role in the origin of the me too movement is ridiculous, I would suggest that you cannot imagine how ridiculous the idea sounds to me coming from of my own mouth. I've always been politically outspoken and I've used the Internet for almost 20 years as an outlet for my political opinions and rants. I started, actually, on the old New York Times forums in an epic thread called The Lewinsky Scandal.

The idea that women who had been preyed upon by men in the entertainment industry should come forward and say so by simply articulating the words, 'me, too' was and would have naturally been for me, at that time, just another day online offering up my passionate opinion on something. I've commented probably a dozen times in various NYTimes articles on this subject since the Weinstein story broke and much more extensively in another online venue.

One last bit of information or guidance to anyone who may try to piece this all together. You have to remember that the Lena Dunham piece was only, I think, maybe the fourth article on the Weinstein business since the story broke. Everyone was reading those piece and the comments sections on the New York Times are, for any devoted consumer of the Times' product, must see reading. For so many people with even a tangential interest in Hollywood or the entertainment industry, this story was beyond enthralling and every word written on the subject at the newspaper of record was being widely consumed including the comments sections.

I suggested three things that directly correlate with Alyssa Milano's hashtag/call tweet and her explanation for why she tweeted and I did it five days before her hashtag me too tweet. I suggested that women who had been victimized should come forward. So did she. I suggested a way, a unique way, for them to do that. I said they should come forward by simply saying 'me, too.' Alyssa Milano also suggested that they come forward by using the words 'me too' but in the form of a hashtag. I'm 60 years old. I missed the significant of the hashtag as a conduit for spreading this sort of an idea and so she certainly deserves full credit for that idea and for using her fame to create to launch this movement to where it is now. But lastly, she says her motivation for doing this was so that we could all get an idea of just how many women had been the victim of sexual predation. In the last paragraph of my comment on the Dunham piece I write that I don't know how many women would answer such a 'me, too' call but I knew that hundreds of thousands could. So once again, five days before Alyssa Milano tweeted her #metoo call, I had posted all of those thoughts in the form of a comment on the New York Times website.

Again. I don't belong here. I'm not one of you editors and I realize now that it is in no way my role to effect what ends up in this entry. I felt a need to make sure this information was complete and accurate but I'm adjusting to all of this and one part of that adjustment is that a lot of what is in the public realm, what is being said, how it is characterized, so much of that is out of my control. Not easy for me because, if you haven't guessed by now, I'm a control freak.

Good luck.

Jammerbirdi (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath list is not accurate

Hi all, just a thought here, but many of the accused men in the aftermath section are linked to articles that make zero reference to the "Me Too" movement or hashtag. If this is to continue, then literally every sexual harassment allegation will be attributed to Me Too going forward. Previously I proposed that only individuals who were named with accusations explicitly stated as being inspired by the Me Too movement should be listed in the Aftermath section. Of course, this is an unparalleled social moment, and so the vast number of public accusations is going to be linked to "me too" in spirit. But "in spirit" isn't what Wikipedia is built on, and for us to add someone to the list, when the accuser does not make the connection explicit, is a clear case of WP:OR. Furthermore, citing a journalist or op-ed column's statement that an accusation was tied to MeToo is not valid unless the journalist is reporting that the accuser stated so. This isn't to belittle the effects of this social movement, but we need to maintain standards. To that end, I propose we remove names that are not explicitly stated in their references to be connected to metoo, and create a non-bulleted aftermath paragraph outlining the widespread, but removed, impact of the hashtag, which can draw from any number of the many, many quality news articles reporting on it right now. Thoughts? -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That list should probably be moved, intact and without removing any names, to Weinstein effect. It fits better there than here. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the reverse should happen as I've never heard of anyone refer to the post-MeToo events as the "Weinstein effect". It really should be called the MeToo effect.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Here at Wikipedia, we rely on sources, not personal anecdotes. Here are some sources which discuss the "Weinstein effect":[7][8][9][10][11][12]. FallingGravity 16:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Owlsmcgee: I would say that this is pretty far from a clear case of WP:OR, as it's mostly semantics here, e.g. did the really use the Me Too hashtag or did they just make an public accusation within some number of days after it starting trending but not mention it specifically? I just don't see much of a case for WP:SYN or WP:OR there, it's more just splitting hairs. I would go as far as to say Wikipedia has guidelines instead of rules or mandates, because guidelines are fundamentally more in the camp of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law... In fact, checking now, this is explicitly stated in WP:5P5: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions..." - Scarpy (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Currently the article is MeToo (Hashtag). I've argued against MeToo (Movement) before as being WP:TOOSOON but maybe there are enough sources that we should consider that. It's not about the rules so much as making sure the article is legible, and accurately conveys information. That way we don't have to rely on first-person, explicit links to metoo. But I'm afraid that implying that people came forward because of a hashtag, when they never explicitly said so, is an indirect inference and qualifies as original research. At the very least, it needs to be clarified in the text. Basically: "Me Too (Hashtag)" requires explicit sourcing to the hashtag, "Me Too (Movement)" doesn't. We should decide what's most accurate and go with it, don't you think? -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Scarpy Thank you! The MeToo effect is obviously still percolating through society. I don't know why some people here insist on such rigidity. It's as if everyone has OCD or something.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This isn't a place for insults. And it isn't OCD to want to set some parameters for the article's organization. If you want every man ever accused of sexual harassment for the rest of eternity to be part of the "Me Too" movement, then this page is currently headed in that direction. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
1) There's already an ongoing discussion of the parameters for updating the Aftermath list. I've proposed an end of December 2017 cut-off for timeliness's sake. 2) We're only adding public figures, not everyone. 3) There are women on the list, too.70.112.229.80 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Not every public figure accused of sexual harassment through December 2017 will be the result of the Me Too hashtag. It's a powerful movement but we shouldn't be misleading to think the hashtag is the reason everyone is coming forward. Only public figures accused of sexual harassment with reliable sources linking the accusation to the metoo movement should be cited as the result of the hashtag. We don't get to decide what motivates people to come forward: to do so is a clear case of WP:OR as the article is currently written. Everything needs to be cited to a reliable source and verifiable. Right now, that isn't what's happening. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Owlsmcgee If you're really that concerned about it, an easy thing to do would be to split the list. "In wake of #metoo" vs "With the hashtag me too." We haven't had much discussion here, but consensus here doesn't seem to indicate a concern about WP:OR or WP:SYN. Could post a request for a third opinion or something similar to get more of an outside view. - Scarpy (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the list should just disappear, to be honest, but I see the consensus isn't with me on that, so I am going to digress. There seemed to be agreement that the list should at least be limited to those explicitly linked to the hashtag, but we haven't been abiding by it. I think it's best if I just let this article go. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete the whole thing. I've just split the former "Aftermath" section, which was renamed to the misleading neologism "MeToo effect" on November 27. It's now in two sections, both inappropriate: Me Too (hashtag)#Ongoing effect, which is unsourced general nothingness restating that people use the tag; and Me Too (hashtag)#Names of accused, which is not about the #MeToo hashtag, was never called the "MeToo effect", and is a massively disproportionate hit list of people, some of whom were only mentioned once by one other person, regardless of whether someone used the #MeToo tag while doing it. The more I think about it the more someone needs to just blank the whole list — elevating every mention to encyclopedic status is 100+ libel lawsuits waiting to happen, and WP:BLPREMOVE applies; even WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't allow this unvetted list of shame. --Closeapple (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete list. I agree with Closeapple. The list should be section blanked as it is largely arbitrary, with some if not many of the names being linked to single accusations that are not even necessarily related to the topic of the page. A large number of the cited sources are not even traditional news mastheads, but rather less reliable sources such as gossip sites, celebrity blogs, and even tech websites. Nevertheless, the articles cited all provide a greater context including details of the allegations and specify that they are simply allegations. Without specific context for each person listed, the list is a libel lawsuit in the making and is likely in breach of WP:BLP.
Including this list in the context of the page – that is relating to the #MeToo campaign and Weinstein Effect – without greater context for each listed person gives the appearance that each allegation, regardless of what evidence or basis exists for it, is notable in its own right. If the allegation is not notable or reliable enough to include on the persons actual Wikipedia page, it should not be included here. Certainly, there are certain individuals that have significant enough allegations against them to warrant mention in this article, but an indiscriminating list of anyone who has since had any sort of allegation of any type made against them, regardless of reliability, as long as they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page is not the responsible way of documenting these serious, potentially reputation damaging matters. Kb.au (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, the vast majority of the people listed here have either faced real-world professional repercussions (Suspended/Fired/Arrested) or even apologized, essentially admitting that they did what their accusers said they did.70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a long and libelious bow to draw without citations. Whether the allegations have been made or not isn't in issue. The BLP issue comes from linking them together without providing context in text. Also, linking them to the #MeToo campaign that almost none of the sources mention is synthesising your own conclusions that the accusations are linked the campaign. It may be that such a list is appropriate in another article about the "Silence Breakers" more generally (I personally still believe an indiscriminate list such as this is a clear violation of WP:BLP), but to include it in this article is definitely incorrect. A sexual harassment accusation does not in itself make someone notable. Nor does someone being notable mean a single accusation is necessarily reliable or notable enough to be included in that persons article. Listing every single person, some of very limited notability, and some of the accusations of very limited reliability (see Geoffrey Rush, among others mentioned in the discussion on this page), that has been somehow linked into this movement since the fallout from Weinstein is dangerous and has zero encyclopedic value. Kb.au (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad that you mentioned Geoffrey Rush because, guess what? He's resigned from his post as president of the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It is exactly those sort of comments that are libelious and dangerous. Rush's response (in part) was:

"It is unreasonable that my professional colleagues should be somehow associated with such allegations. In the circumstances, I have decided to step aside in my ambassadorial role as president of AACTA effective immediately and until these issues have been resolved."

Difficult to see how that implies any wrongdoing on his part. Also, you should watch/read this Media Watch report on the Australian media's reporting of the Rush allegations. It's interesting. Kb.au (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I clicked on the link and saw no negative bias in the headlines used by The Daily Telegraph. The language was pretty neutral and did not imply that Rush was actually guilty of anything. The newspaper even acknowledged that Rush denied the allegations.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Being the sole victim of a perpetrator does not make that individual's plight any less real/valid than if a perpetrator had 100 victims. I think you need a reality check. As Scarpy mentioned, Wikipedia's policies acknowledge that reality requires flexibility, and the spirit of what we're doing is more impt than the "rules".70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging Weinstein effect article to this article?

I proposed merging the Weinstein effect article to this one because it's really the same thing as we're doing with the MeToo effect section anyway. No one has voice any objections over on that article's Talk page. Let's make it happen.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

If there's any merging, then it should be this article into Weinstein effect, not vice versa. "Weinstein effect" is a more inclusive term than "MeToo effect", because "Weinstein effect" isn't just linked to the social media campaign. As has been noted before, the current "MeToo effect" section is inaccurate/misleading for this article. A lot of the allegations involve unearthed police documents or recently uncovered settlement documents, or people who come forward to the press without sharing the #MeToo hashtag. FallingGravity 05:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. If anything, there should be a third article, but God only knows what it would be called. We're dealing with at least three topics here:
  1. The general sexual interaction concern that has come up in 2017, and doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, and also has no common name yet, because of all the semantic implications of each word used. #2 (the Weinstein effect) and #3 below (#MeToo) are probably stand-alone subtopics of this #1 topic.
  2. The Weinstein effect, described in its article intro as "a phenomenon where allegations of sexual harassment and assault against celebrities are publicized and trigger responses from companies and institutions."
  3. #MeToo, which is a hashtag intended to build awareness without being coerced into names or details. Its spread is a result of topic #1, but it's a more specific movement. And some instances of #MeToo revelations might related to some instances of the Weinstein effect, but they're definitely not the same movements.
  4. Some alleged "MeToo" effect section, which sounds like something some section title a Wikipedia editor made up that conflates topic #1 with the name of topic #3. It doesn't seem to be on-topic #MeToo: It's a list of accused people, not victims. Actually, this section should probably be blanked entirely per WP:BLPREMOVE: A bunch of those people are each listed based of one remark from one person, without evidence, and our BLP standards are far higher than day-to-day news media — even WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't allow for being put on a shame list based on one source. --Closeapple (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. MeToo seems more problematic on BLP grounds, as you say, a single semi-anonymous accusation is an issue. "Weinstein effect" defined as accusations being taken seriously, with consequences for those previously protected/immune seems easier to defend though, with the criteria for being on the list that consequences (fired/suspended/fined) either occurred, or were at least called for/discussed by multiple 3rd parties. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of handwringing over "accuracy", but guess what? If you do any amount of digging, a good 80%-plus of the people listed have been Suspended, Fired, or Arrested.70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

See #Aftermath list is not accurate above. --Closeapple (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Everyone above lays out a better case than I could have. Simply put, the Weinstein effect is an independently notable subject.LM2000 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am against on deleting the Weinstein Effect page and merging it with the #MeToo article page. As this article is a much different situation compared to the #MeToo article, detailing the gradual effect of powerful men stepping down after being accused of sexual harassment following the New York Times article exposing Harvey Weinstein's 30 years of sexually abusing women.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

List of accused

In a WP:BOLD edit, I've removed the list, because it has the strong potential to be WP:BLP non-compliant, and because we don't necessarily have sourcing that the #MeToo movement led to every accusation on there. I'd like to see if there's consensus to leave it off or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Leave out. Many of the names referred to in the list were not cited as being linked to the #MeToo campaign, and linking them with the campaign simply because the allegations are of sexual assault or harassment is an example of WP:SYNTH. Including an indiscriminate list of names without the specific context for each allegation puts the article in potential breach of WP:BLP, especially given many of the sources appeared to be tabloid/gossip/blog in nature and may not meet the level of reliability required under WP:BLPSOURCE. Kb.au (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There's already been ongoing discussion, and the list has value in that it collects information that no other publication has. Even people who don't like the list have left it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
For one example of why the list is problematic, read the sourcing for Stallone's addition to the list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Contest the Stallone addition then, not the whole list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.115 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@70.112.229.80, the 'ongoing discussion' seems to be between a handful of editors who have a shared interest in including as many names as possible in the list without regard to Wikipedia policy, specifically genuine BLP issues. In response to being challenged on various names in the list, numerous times you have suggested creating articles to make people without articles notable. I feel like you might be misunderstanding how the notability guidelines work, and your comments through this talk page and a number of reversions suggest you think you own the article. In response to SarekOfVulcan's request for a consensus on whether to include list or not following their good-faith removal of it based on BLP concerns, you reverted their edit as 'vandalism' and tried to shut down the discussion on the talk page. The fact that the list 'collects information not presented elsewhere' if anything is an indicator that the material is not reliably sourced other than through synthesis. Views from more editors than just yourself would be appreciated for the purpose of finding a consensus. Kb.au (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, @165.225.34.115, just to make sure there's no false consensus coming about here, are you a different user to @70.112.229.80?
  • Leave out, and see similar comments at #Aftermath list is not accurate above. I've blanked the whole section again, per WP:BLP. 70.112.229.80 and everyone else who wants to add "good enough" accusations is reminded that edit-warring is prohibited by the 3-revert rule: and removing poorly-sourced contentious material is exempt from 3RR, but re-adding it is not exempt. It's libelous, and the main editor that is adding names doesn't have a competent understanding of Wikipedia policy, and thinks that any edits they don't like (including enforcing WP:BLP, which is basically mandatory on Wikipedia, is "vandalism"). It's just a hit list with no description of why a person is listed there other than "alleged" to have committed something "sexual"; then, it not only has no threshold for listing a name, but then mixes everyone who is accused of making a dirty comment with well-identified serial rapists; and the inclusion is often sourced to gossip and rumor sites that don't even pass for reliable sources even on run-of-the-mill Wikipedia citations, let alone a list that basically amounts to "I'm not going to tell you if someone said 'titty' or raped 50 girls — go look it up yourself while I keep adding more names". --Closeapple (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with you 100% @Closeapple (although maybe not in quite those terms). It concerns me that 70.112.229.80 seems worried about the factual accuracy of linking a social media campaign with a faceless group identity that won Time person of the year but has little regard for the real life reputations of real people that WP:BLP exists to protect. I've opened an RfC further down on the talk page in an attempt to get a wider consensus beyond the limited number of watchers on this page so it would be appreciated if you could add your voice to that also. Kb.au (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Closeapple keeps whining about "unsourced" or libelous claims, yet any reasonable person can see that there are ref links at the end of each name. Again, he/she is simply too lazy to hover over or click on those links. Doc Strange, others, and I have been very vigilant about either deleting names w/o ref links or finding better links than were initially available. Furthermore, we have been deleting names that don't merit being listed here. We're not treating this as a wholesale grab bag of accusations the way that Closeapple is implying. The list is big and staggering because this is a pervasive social problem that has persisted for centuries.70.112.229.80 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year

According to the Guardian, "The anti-harassment #MeToo movement was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year." The Time announcement refers to the "Silence Breakers", but ties it into the MeToo hashtag. I think this should be included, but I was reverted. I should have discussed before restoring - sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian is NOT Time Magazine. Why not cite Time Magazine itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.115 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Because the Guardian is secondary source. Secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources. Kb.au (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Why? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:WPNOTRS says so:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.

Kb.au (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
secondary sources that present the same material are preferred., if a secondary source says #MeToo but the primary source says Silence Breakers then they are not the same material. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I don't disagree with you, the Guardian appears to have misreported. But I was answering the questions asked, not saying whether the source was accurate or not. Kb.au (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You do realize this is Time Magazine's award, right? Why would we cite a secondary source? This makes no sense whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Because (not that I like having to repeat myself):

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
— WP:WPNOTRS

Kb.au (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
We can source it to Guardian (or other secondaries) but there is no reason to attribute it, its a non-controversial fact. It can be in wikivoice. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It is controversial as MeToo didn't win but the Silence Breakers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian mis-reported this, so it's unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.72.34 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is NPR unreliable too? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/06/568773208/-metoo-movement-is-person-of-the-year-time-says How about Bloomberg? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-06/-metoo-movement-named-time-magazine-s-person-of-the-year--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
And note that Silence Breakers redirects here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Not any more it doesn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the correction in the Associated Press report is instructional: "This story has been corrected to show that Time magazine’s Person of the Year is the silence breakers. The #MeToo movement is a part of that group." FallingGravity 19:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If a news source gets something wrong, yes, in that instance, it is unreliable. Would you cite NY Times articles written by Jayson Blair?70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, please read the actual Time Magazine article regarding the 2017 People of the Year citation. They are saluting EVERYONE who has been brave enough to stand up against sexual misconduct and gender discrimination. For example, the article mentions the Plaza Hotel Plaintiffs several times and includes a picture of some of them. They filed a lawsuit against their employer in August, two months before MeToo.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on list of public figures mentioned

The consensus is to remove the list of public figures who have had sexual harassment allegations levelled against them per WP:BLP. The removal was done here.

Editors who opposed inclusion noted that the list presented without additional context a list of people who have had very different allegations levelled against them which they considered to be a BLP violation.

Other editors recommended trimming the list to include only people who were specifically cited by an independent reliable source as being accused by the MeToo hashtag. This did not achieve consensus. But there is no prejudice against discussing this further.

Cunard (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the list of public figures who have had sexual harassment allegations levelled against them be removed? Kb.au (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The list of public figures included in this article has no clear connection to the #MeToo campaign beyond connecting two related issues, and is potentially in breach of BLP guidelines. Should we Remove this list entirely, Edit it to include only those accusations that are especially notable, Move it to a more relevant page, or Include it as is? Kb.au (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Remove - The BLP issues can be most effectively managed at the accused's articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - The list is a clear BLP violation as it presents a range of people who have had vastly differing allegations brought against them without saying what the complaint was in relation to or indicating the context of the complaint. It is also largely irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is about a specific social media campaign. Kb.au (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Trim The only entries that should be kept are those where an independent reliable third party source, in the same context, mentions that a certain person was accused by the Me Too hashtag. More ideally, those cases should also have collaborating evidence that is complete separate from the hashtag. Those that are sourceable only to what a Twitter message says should not be included. This might massively purge the list, but it is synthesis to connect the current number of sexual misconduct accusations going around that are not directly connected to the hashtag. (That said, given Time's Person of the Year being the Silence Breakers (which includes the hashtag), which should probably be a separate article now, that list could be transposed in whole over there, leaving only the limited cases here, to remove the synthesis. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Masem -- This is just me talking, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. What you're proposing would create an even bigger list that encompasses all accusations taking place in 2017. I can only imagine the fits some of the people here would get, lol. 70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • We'd first need to limit any such list to non-Twitter-only accusations, and those reported in reliable sources, and if that is too long, only those that have some type of corroboration by yet another independent source. As per BLP, we shouldn't report accusations (and thus list people) if no RS has picked it up, and should demand strong evidence for inclusion if there's only a single RS source. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Closeapple -- are you going around deleting all references to allegations of sexual misconduct everywhere on Wikipedia? The same ref links that we've been using for this list are used on biographical pages, too.70.112.229.80 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove (keep removed) -- a BLP nightmare and some were even not Wiki-notable. A few notable examples, where the sources specifically connect the allegations with the hashtag, would be appropriate. But this should be done in prose, not via an exhaustive list. The article should be about the social movement, not specific accusations. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • You people are ridiculous:
1) This is still being actively discussed. 2) The existence of this list was already vetted by two high-level administrators when another person tried to vandalize this page. 70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you @70.112.229.80. It is ultimately up to the community to decide whether the list is appropriate or not. The list was not vetted by the two admins you mentioned. Samsara played a role in resolving a edit warring dispute regarding the removal of Donald Trump's name from the list. The current dispute is entirely different. Kb.au (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Would turning this into a table mollify some of you? I actually asked this on the Weinstein effect page, though people seem to have lost interest in reading/editing that one. For example:
Name | Accuser(s) | Alleged Activity/(ies) | Dates | Acknowledged/Denied | Outcome (Resigned/Fired/Lawsuit/etc.)
Louis C.K. | numerous | inappropriate exposure | - | Acknowledged | Projects withheld from release/canceled, contracts terminated by agents/managers/reps70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 5 reasons to remove:
    1. The list of accused is not on-point with the actual article subject. The #MeToo hashtag is to allow people to say they were victims, without having to go into involuntary details; it's pretty much there to avoid a victim having to engage further in the name-and-shame game without their own consent. This list is an attempt to do the opposite by making three giant leaps: first by expanding the scope of this article to include anything about the sexual allegations in the last 2 years, which is a bigger topic that needs a separate article; then by using that topic as an excuse to make a giant list of the accused, far bigger than the number of people named in the article as having actually used the #MeToo tag; then by trying to mislabel the list with the WP:NEOLOGISM "#MeToo effect" on the section header, and reverting anyone who attempts to change it.
    2. Because it's a blatant WP:BLP violation, as I and multiple other people have pointed out in previous talk sections. Defenses for this list have been based on a lot of half-baked notions about both Wikipedia rules and defamation standards, and one of these half-baked notions is that one can get away with spreading defamation by throwing a cheap qualifier on the front that it's true that some source once alleged that another source once alleged that the target did something illegal/abusive. This list, as formed, is simply Red Channels all over again. Despite having "sources" listed that were even more direct, the list itself is now the infamous subject, and the people who pushed it were successfully sued by those who were listed.
    3. Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not a news source for building up-to-the-minute lists of things that have no finishing point.
    4. Wikipedia, a not-for-profit encyclopedia project with its own standards, is not a web service to right great wrongs by immediately getting maximum exposure for who's got The Scarlet Letter upon them from day to day and potentially dragging the Wikimedia Foundation resources in to fight some user's battle because that user is too cheap to go find their own web hosting.
    5. Its mere presence is a stinking, infectious hazard: It first attacts people who, no matter its size, will see it as an invitation keep expanding with more names someone "forgot", without minor concerns like Wikipedia policies. Then, by being on a high-visibility topic, it gives the impression that this is the standard for Wikipedia, which in turn both makes Wikipedia look like a cultural-gossip sheet to readers, and also gives the impression to new editors that light sourcing is OK even for life-changing defamatory claims, which will undoubtedly spread to other articles, just like they have with radio and TV station articles, and we'll never be able to see which editors were led to getting themselves warned or blocked because they learned from seeing this article. :--Closeapple (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And, since my edit history on the article is short and easy to recognize as section blanking with policy citations, not individual source pruning, I don't see the point in a question with an obvious answer of no, other than to prove that oblique defamation of others this anonymous IP's primary work, all the more reason that they shouldn't be editing articles with WP:BLP implications. --Closeapple (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not the one editing all those articles, buddy. Numerous additions have been made to this list by other people, and numerous additions have been made to other biographical pages by other people.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The list of allegations on the Weinstein effect is much more selectively and responsibly written. It presents each person with allegations made against them in context, providing details of what was alleged, whether the person denies the allegations or not, and whether they resigned or were stood down from a position or not. In that article, each person listed is relevant to the topic of the article. Some of the sources in that article are questionable (ie. gossip sites, etc), but overall it largely avoids the BLP issues that the indiscriminate and out of context list in this article presented. Kb.au (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • For much of the past couple of weeks, the content was largely presented in paragraph form, which helped form a narrative. Sometime in the past 48 hours, someone turned it into a bullet-point list. There are more names/instances now, but the article has lost its previous structure. Indeed, the content much more closely resembles the list that we had here. I'm okay with the list appearing here or there, but that article is currently a candidate for deletion. By the way, I proposed a table addressing the concerns you mention, but people seem disinterested both on this talk page and that talk page.70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You can't honestly be suggesting the Weinstein effect list 'closely resembles' the list that was on this page. They're not even close to similar. The list on this page was literally a list of names with a two or three word bio… It made no specific mention of each listee's alleged miscoduct or response beyond a catch-all slur at the beginning the section. Kb.au (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with NBC and NY Times lists is that they're very small compared to the one here. Moreover, it's likely that (so-called) RSs are using the list that we've compiled here. I remember doing research on a particular person, and I discovered that an article that was published by a news site had the exact same text as the Wiki biography page. Someone simply copied and pasted the other.70.112.229.80 (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference links to individual sources that don't link the subject to the #MeToo campaign that the article is about. The list is just a synthesised, out of context, libellous hit list. The author seems to have no interest in ensuring the article contains content of encyclopaedic value, but rather is just trying to ensure that their Christmas wishlist of people whose reputations they want to keep forever trashed is included, regardless of the reliability of the source and the nature of the complaint. Kb.au (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You and Closeapple keep using the same straw man arguments, creating a non-existent problem out of thin air, attributing it to the people who added names, and then tearing down the figment of your imagination as a violation of Wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of the reasons for disregarding the existing advice in WP:BLP (if it's in usually reliable sources, it's usable, essentially) are WP:OR. The sole point on which I do agree with them is that #metoo isn't curated by anyone. That's why I suggested that we only use subsets of #metoo which are compiled by usually reliable sources with evidence they've investigated each allegation independently of the #metoo allegations. Not mentioning what's been alleged at all isn't any more principled than accepting every #metoo allegation at face value. Either way, we're doing just what WP:BLP doesn't tell us to do - substitute WP:OR or unreliable sources for WP:RS. That's something we shouldn't do. loupgarous (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 7 December 2017

Add Category:Weinstein effect as a category for this article. I began organizing all relevant articles under this category and this is the only one I can't edit on. Belchicks (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There's already a separate article, which I've proposed to merge to this article.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an article, I'm talking about a category. There's a difference. Belchicks (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Done Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone put Monica Lewinsky in the list

Note.-Booksnarky (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Integrate similar topic articles

The main article appears to be 2017 United States political sexual scandals, the name has problems, propose moving to 2017 sexual harassment scandals now. Then the various similar articles need to be integrated into that main article, and Ive put up some move and merge tags for that purpose. -Booksnarky (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. We shouldn't just merge a bunch of articles, all of which were created before a parent article, into one article. Having "sub" articles is helpful, especially since there seem to be multiple independently notable (but related) topics here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with making that the main article is not every perpetrator or accused is a politician.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Empty "Notes" section

Resolved

Since I can't edit the article directly, does someone mind removing the empty "Notes" section? I don't think this is a controversial request. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Do you also mind changing the first "See also" link to 2017 Westminster sexual scandals? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 December 2017

Add in international response section: "#metoo“ was named [word of the year] 2017 in the German speaking part of Switzerland, in the French speaking part "harcèlement" (harassment) was awarded the same title. Source: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/semantics_swiss-words-of-the-year---metoo-and-harassment/43726766 2A02:8109:8C80:3DC8:D55B:1DFD:AAA:FF25 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

expansion of Criticism heading

May I suggest expanding the criticism heading? There has in fact been multiple articles noting problems with this movement, including, but not limited to: - Claims being published on social media implicating specific individuals without an official police case being opened, allowing no legit platform for the alleged perpetrator to state his side. - Media biased to alleged victims vs alleged perpetrators. - The scope of metoo movement being too broad.

FashionFreak (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)FashionFreak

I'd definitely support that; though I think it should make a distinction — or maybe point out as one of the problems — the conflation, even in the mass media, between #MeToo (which shouldn't pressure a victim for details or confrontation) and all the bigger "movement" that people are too lazy or scared to give a name to, which has a portion that includes direct naming-and-shaming which should require higher scrutiny and isn't getting it. Some people post a #MeToo and names at the same time, but most do not and shouldn't have to get sucked into the reputation of other people who have decided to start a duel. --Closeapple (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, big criticism from some sources especially for the scope being too wide. Another valid point I've seen is that it can be abused...instead of being a platform for women of sexual abuse to speak up, it can be a platform to attack a man and sully his reputation without having to take the normal route via police. Seen some cases in one country I visited recently. AspiringCheetah (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

Are we allowed to add the information to the page? Or do you have to wait for an editor to do it? I'm new to wikipedia, but I've seen on some of the other pages that editors exercise almost ownership-like editing on pages...even legit information is removed without discussion...AspiringCheetah (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

You can edit the page but be prepared to defend your changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  talk 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Me Too (hashtag) → Me Too – Seems to be the primary topic as it is listed at the top of Me Too (disambiguation). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755:, well it satisfies your argument. If you read the article it clearly says "Social activist and community organizer Tarana Burke created the phrase "Me Too" on the Myspace social network[8] in 2006 as part of a grassroots campaign". I don't know why it is being assumed this is recent (probably because of the word "hashtag"), but this phrase existed way before the Weinstein effect. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The "me too" campaign was not well known back in 2006. The Weinstein effect has popularized the name of the campaign, that does not mean it has automatic primary topic status. CookieMonster755✉ 01:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
And a contender for being as primary as this hashtag/campaign is? I see none at the dab page. Obscure topics existing are not a justification to have a term disambiguated, and comments like "it is RECENTISM" and "let's rediscuss in 2030" are merely poor and speculative, and don't make a discussion productive. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no primary topic, therefore a dab page is the best solution. You are right, obscure topics existing are not a justification to have a term disambiguated. However, a Billboard song is hardly obscure. I would support Me Too campaign or Me Too movement as WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. CookieMonster755✉ 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian : "#MeToo campaign" In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename page to "Me Too (movement)"

The current name Me Too (hashtag) is not how this movement is typically referred to. People usually refer to it as the "#MeToo movement" or sometimes just "#MeToo". If we keep the hashtag in the name it should be MeToo (hashtag) as #MeToo doesn't have a space when used as a hashtag. However, since we can't include the hashtag in the article name, I suggest we change it to Me Too (movement), since there are many versions of the hashtag in different languages, and that would cover all of them. Thoughts? Lonehexagon (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lonehexagon: Please see WP:RM#CM for instructions on how to open a move request. This will put it on a move list so we can get wider consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I will. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. It seems there's clear consensus here for move. Almost everyone has subsets of suggestions but "Me Too", with "movement" without parentheses almost has the general support. All other reasonable titles can be created as redirects (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Me Too (hashtag) → Me Too (movement) – The current name Me Too (hashtag) is not how this movement is typically referred to. People usually refer to it as the "#MeToo movement" when talking about it in English (at least on Google and news sites if you search for "MeToo" or "Me Too"), though there are many variants of "Me Too" hashtags in different languages. If we were going to keep "hashtag" in the name, it should be MeToo (hashtag) as #MeToo doesn't have a space when used as a hashtag. However, since we can't include the hashtag in the article name, and there are so many variants of hashtags, I suggest we change it to Me Too (movement). This has the additional benefit of making it more inclusive since this title would be less specific to the English variant. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • General Support. I wonder if "Me Too movement" or "MeToo movement" may be better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Another option could be "Me Too (campaign)" (or "Me Too campaign", doesn't matter), as some people suggested that earlier. Or "MeToo", an existing redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Alternative. Move it to MeToo which already (correctly) redirects to this article. --В²C ☎ 19:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose using the term "campaign" in the title because campaign refers to "work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal" and this movement isn't organized by any one group. A movement is "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas," which is closer to what #MeToo is. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support MeToo for WP:NATURALDIS and WP:SMALLDETAILS. CookieMonster755✉ 16:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I oppose MeToo. It is unnecessarily simple and this movement is never referred as just "MeToo" without a hashtag or indicating it's a movement. It is also not inclusive to the dozens of "Me Too" alternatives in other languages that are a big part of the same movement, like #MoiAussi, #WoYeShi and #YoTambién. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Last I checked this was the English WP and therefore favors, you know, the English variants of terms like this. --В²C ☎ 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That's true, but the article is covering a movement that, although it started in the US, has become a global movement. The purpose of Wikipedia is to choose a title that is "recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent."[1]. If you search for "MeToo" in Google news, it just about always has the hashtag except when combined with the word "movement," therefore in order to be recognizable, consistent, clear, natural and precise, it should be some variant of MeToo (hashtag), MeToo movement, or Me Too movement. The instructions for naming articles on wikipedia[2] suggests searching through Google Scholar and Google news to try to get an understanding of the most common usage. Here is Google News,[3] which has many, many examples that support my point. When I checked Google Scholar there weren't many entries because the movement is so new, but the ones I found did use the hashtag[4] except one example that referred to it as the "'MeToo' campaign". The other entries for "MeToo" or "Me-Too" or "Me Too" talk about different topics. Have you seen a significant number of examples of people referring to #MeToo just saying "MeToo" without either the hashtag or some sort of indication it is a movement/campaign? If people only rarely use that term by itself, I don't think it makes a clear, recognizable, natural or precise article title. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support some version of Me Too movement. Oppose MeToo. We're not anywhere close to primary topic at this point. We need a disambiguator used on reliable sources. Hashtag doesn't cover the entire subject anymore. BusterD (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Not anywhere close to primary topic for MeToo? That this is the primary topic is established, as MeToo is already the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article, which means this article's topic is the primary topic for MeToo. Unless it's an error. But, then, what other uses of "MeToo" are there? --В²C ☎ 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Just for argument's sake, http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/A/AOL-.html --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • We do have an entire disambiguation page dedicated to it: Me Too. So somebody besides me thinks there's more than one search valid term here. Just because it's trending now means very little long term. BusterD (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
          • But we're talking about the primary topic of "MeToo", not "Me Too". In other words, if someone searches with "metoo", what are they looking for if not this article? --В²C ☎ 21:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
            • So we disagree. Is User:Born2cycle planning to badger each and every contributor who disagrees with their position? Does that editor think this will convince me to change my assertion? BusterD (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Don't mean to badger anyone, just want to make sure there are no misunderstandings about the situation. My question stands. --В²C ☎ 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
                • That's a great question. As one example of what else they might be searching for with MeToo, they could be looking for MeToo, the branding name of television station WMEU-CA.[5] "Me Too" and "Me-Too" are also regularly used in the pharmaceutical industry to describes certain types of drugs (check out the Wikipedia entry for Me-too compound)). If you type "MeToo" into Google Scholar, there are many different topics that come up, including the pharmaceutical use, but never about #MeToo without the hashtag or mentioning it's a movement or campaign.[6] Lonehexagon (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • Are any of those significant uses of MeToo (no space) sufficient to make MeToo redirect to MeToo (disambiguation) or Me Too (disambiguation)? Because currently this article's subject is treated as the primary topic of "MeToo", since MeToo is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. --В²C ☎ 03:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • It doesn't seem to be a contest - see the page views. I would say the answer to the primary topic question for Me Too as well as MeToo is indisputably the subject of this article. --В²C ☎ 03:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
                    • Yes, but the point is we're trying to come up with the right name for the article. MeToo doesn't fit this article as the main title for other reasons besides that it should go to a disambiguation page. If you search Google Scholar for "Me Too" or "MeToo" then many, many things come up. Therefore those search terms are not precise enough. The main factor that differentiates this topic from those other topics is the hashtag, or an indication that it is some sort of movement. Before the movement, people used MeToo, Me-Too and Me Too commonly to refer to types of drugs. When it has the hashtag or the term "movement" it NEVER means anything else. Including either the hashtag or a word similar to "movement" gives the most clear, precise and natural title you can get without reducing away so much as to become ambiguous. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as presented. I don't think it should be changed simply to "Me Too movement". I could support "#MeToo movement" but there might be technical issue with including the hashtag symbol in the title. #MeToo became notable and met GNG as a hashtag. #MeToo is largely a social media phenomena so it doesn't seem reasonable to change the title so it doesn't include the word "hashtag" or the hashtag symbol (#), however I'm not opposed in general to including the word "movement" in the title, as long as don't remove hashtag.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I support MeToo (hashtag).--DynaGirl (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Good idea В²C. I support ♯MeToo.--DynaGirl (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It is an interesting suggestion. We're proposing to intentionally misspell the hashtag in order to work around the technical restriction on naming? I can see a few issues with that... BusterD (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the above demonstrates that it's practically indiscernible from the correct spelling. You can't really type it in, but as long as what people are likely to type in redirects here that doesn't matter. You can link to it directly, like this: ♯MeToo, so that's good. If you search for MeToo in WP search, I don't think it will show up. But other potential titles that would redirect to it would show up, so that's probably not a problem. It can be listed on dab pages and would show up quite recognizably and concisely in cat lists... I think it's worth a try. --В²C ☎ 23:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't think this might cause problems with naive editors trying to add links to #MeToo which would make a blue link to a (usually) non-existent section in the article the link appears in. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of that. I could see that being a problem. Are there any past cases of intentionally misspelling an article to get around technical restrictions and make it look as "close" as possible? I wonder if this breaks Wikipedia's rule that titles must be "natural," "precise," and "consistent," especially since the page then wouldn't show up if you search for "MeToo" in WP search. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's really nothing preventing naive editors from linking to #MeToo already, albeit it would be more likely if the actual title was ♯MeToo. Okay, I'm back to support MeToo as the best choice per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (by a mile). --В²C ☎ 17:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
As sources describe the topic with the term “movement” there is no need to use it parenthetically, non parenthetically is preferred per WP:Natural. “Me Too” is better than “MeToo” as a choice for formal professional styling given that both are used in sources. Drop the “hashtag” word and it’s symbol “#” as medium-specific styling now superseded by the wider movement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You can't count two options together when there is only one article title, but the others can be redirects. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and the two are different in a significant way. MeToo movement has the words combined in social media/hashtag format, even if it doesn't contain the hashtag symbol, so it's a little better than just Me Too movement in my opinion. As another suggestion, if the word "movement" is important for some people to include in the title, how about ♯MeToo movement? I think the hashtag is important because it's used in predominance of reliable sources and also to reflect this is a social media phenomenon. Do a Google news search on Me Too. Every title I see that pops up includes "#MeToo" (one word with the hashtag). If we're going to follow the sourcing it seems "Me Too" should be a redirect. and the actual title should be ♯MeToo or ♯MeToo movement. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
So it seems we have three main questions. 1.) "MeToo" vs "Me Too" 2.) Whether to include "movement" or not 3.) Whether to include "(hashtag)" or a ♯ instead of a # . Lonehexagon (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
1a Me Too (hashtag)
1b MeToo (hashtag)
2a Me Too (movement)
2b MeToo (movement)
2c MeToo movement
2d Me Too movement
3a Me Too (campaign)
3b Me Too campaign
4a Me Too
4b MeToo
5a #MeToo
6a ♯MeToo
6b ♯MeToo movement
My !vote:
1a Me Too (hashtag) Current. 7/10
1b MeToo (hashtag) 7.4/10 (the hashtag has no space)
2a Me Too (movement) 7.5 /10 (the movement encompasses the intial hastag trend)
2b MeToo (movement) 7.4/10 (not sure about no space from the hashtag mixed with the movement which usually has a space)
2c MeToo movement 7.5/10 (more natural than 2b)
2d Me Too movement 8/10 (natural, matches broad use post hashtag breakaway)
3a Me Too (campaign) 6.5/10 (not really a campaign, no central driver)
3b Me Too campaign 6.7/10 (more natural than 3a)
4a Me Too 4/10 (ambiguous)
4b MeToo 8/10 (works. Relic of the hashtag, no longer a hashtag)
5a #MeToo 5/10 (awkward for new editors, # is a problem character, topic has moved beyond the hashtag)
6a ♯MeToo 3/10 (deliberate misuse of characters. homoglyphs create more problems than they solve)
6b ♯MeToo movement 3/10 (same as 6a)
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22MeToo%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS724US724&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEjqjo0PHYAhUS3WMKHc3-AnQQ_AUICigB&biw=1368&bih=678
  4. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=metoo&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5&as_vis=1
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMEU-CD#Conversion_to_classic_television_format_as_"MeToo"
  6. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=2017&as_vis=1&q=metoo&btnG=
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism is excessive

Me Too movement

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Lafayette Baguette (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MeToo_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1235721688"