Jump to content

Talk:Rebecca Watson

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

I propose we lose the gallery completely. All of the images are old and none of them really add anything. Also we should try to get a more up to date image for the head of the article. The 2011 image can move down to the elevator incident section if we want to keep it at all.

We should also mention her current activities. She has a science/comedy/quiz podcast called Quiz-o-Tron which looks like it is notable enough to mention briefly but not to cover in depth. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the gallery. I also swapped the images around so that the 2012 image is at the top. It's not great but it is better than it was. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elevatorgate

I've changed the heading of the "Elevator incident" section to "Elevatorgate", which is what this is usually called in the media and other reliable sources. To me, "Elevator incident" sounds vague and nefarious, whereas the "-gate" suffix connotes more of an overblown public reaction (see List of "-gate" scandals). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an overblown reaction. It only seems so, because the main incident remains curiously missing (for nearly a decade!). Where’s the evidence? check it backwards. “Dear Muslima” was a comment on a blog post by PZ Myers titled “Always Name Names”, and that titular name to name was Stef McGraw. And that was, because Watson brought a feud with her into a talk, titled “Rebecca Watson: The Religious Right vs. Every Woman on Earth | CFI Leadership Conference 2011” (see YouTube) where she made severe allegations against McGraw, and more so “people in the audience right now”. Check on YouTube, most happens between minute 12 and 16. So, Dawkins comments on this “name names” thread, but actually writes a sarcastic response to a “Dear Muslima” in effect that she can’t expect help, because western atheist feminists are caught up in first world problems. When asked, he comments moments later that he, too, found it overblown that there was this flame war about a double entendre in a lift. So, Dawkins clearly believes that this flame was about the lift incident nothing-story, even though it moved on to much more severe issues. In reality, there were severe accusations in Watson’s CFI talk, I stress this — you can watch right now — death threats, sexual abuse, rape victims. McGraw and “people in the audience right now” were implicated directly. Watson literally says this, marvel at the slides. But crucially, when the name names discussion happened, the video was not online. Thus, the American movement and attendees there were discussing the severe stuff, while everyone else (including Dawkins) were lagging behind, believing it was about the lift story. Wikipedia engages in a purposefully false story, in part because the incidident was not notable for neutral “Papers of Record” to write about it, and those who did write about it where American feminist sources, often known friends of Watson (e.g. Amanda Marcotte) —Lokkhen (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows published, reliable sources. We don't interpret their contents ourselves, but summarize the views of secondary sources. Sources such as LeDrew (2016, p. 198) and Meagher (2018, p. 101) do suggest the reaction was overblown; nonetheless, we should use the same name for the incident that reliable sources do. Amanda Marcotte is not cited anywhere in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defending shoplifting?

This is a non-issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I concur with the removal of this material. As stated, it's pure trivia based on primary sources. The word defended is an interpretation of the sources themselves, making it original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who added that content. I'm posting it here in case anyone else wishes to offer their opinion of whether or not the quote should be included:
In 2021, Watson said, “I cannot stress enough that stealing from big box stores is fine.”[1][2][3][4]
Baxter329 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article about a person is not a list of things that person said. It is closer to a list of those things that person said which have been commented on by reliable sources. Even that is not quite it, but I hope you can see why this subject is not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally written 'stealing from big box stores is not a big deal' but character limits made me change it to 'fine.' I understand that 'fine' is more open to interpretation and could mean 'good' instead, but I still figured even if it was read that way no one would really be upset [...] Is it morally wrong? Sure. Usually. Maybe. I mean, it depends. But is it a big deal? Absolutely not. It’s fine. Whatever.[5]

If I didn't know any better, Baxter329, I would say you were deliberately quoting that one line out of context in order to make Watson look bad. I'm sure no Wikipedian of your morals would do such a thing, right? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included four separate links to her full statement. Baxter329 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RS coverage of this. Linking different versions of the same transcript adds nothing. There is nothing to cover here. A person said a thing you disagree with. It happens. Please just let it go. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Twitter, Rebecca Watson, September 26, 2021
  2. ^ Are Shoplifters Shutting Down Businesses in San Francisco?, YouTube, November 8, 2021
  3. ^ Are Shoplifters Shutting Down Businesses in San Francisco?, Patreon, November 4, 2021
  4. ^ Are Shoplifters Shutting Down Businesses in San Francisco?, Skepchick, November 4, 2021
  5. ^ Are Shoplifters Shutting Down Businesses in San Francisco?, Skepchick, November 4, 2021

Primary vs tertiary source for direct Dawkins quote dispute

TL;DR: I want to add two new sources at the end of a Dawkins quote: https://web.archive.org/web/20110818212451/https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php#comment-4295492 https://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/. Can be reduced to only pharyngula blog link if it's necessary. @Sangdeboeuf disagrees with my position and reverts my edits.

Who is right? Relevant discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sangdeboeuf#Primary_vs_tertiary_source_for_direct_quote_dispute Konradmb (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, the Dawkins quote should really be paraphrased – or quoted briefly as per MOS:QUOTE – instead of copy-pasted in full.
Regarding sourcing, the Skepchick source is out immediately because it's self-published by someone other than Dawkins. It's unclear whether a comment posted to Pharyngula is even a reliable primary source per WP:USERGEN. The site is under Myers' editorial control, not Dawkins'.
The book citation is also preferred because according to Wikipedia policy, secondary sources are preferred. Primary sources are easy to misuse and often lead to undue WP:WEIGHT. Sources only have to be reliable and available in some form. They don't have to be convenient or freely accessible. See WP:FUTON. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebecca_Watson&oldid=1253976804"