Talk:SlutWalk/Archives/2013/November

Let's talk about the "Responses" section

I think we do agree the responses to the Slutwalk are taking as much -if not actually more- space as the description of the movement. As we work on that, I would like to take a closer look at the responses themselves. I'm not talking about sources (yet), but I'd like to know where we're standing.

1. "Risk-management" I already stated I feel uncomfotable having this as a response, when actually the SlutWalk IS the response to that sort of logic. But lately I've realised where that weird feeling came from: IT'S A LIE.

This approach implies that women dressing in a "slutty" way are more likely to be sexually assaulted (hence the "risk-prevention" part). Well, that's not misguided, nor manipulated, nor an "iffy" cisrumstance: 82% of victims are raped by someone they knew, and usually trusted, meaning the way they dressed was hardly important (here are the 911 statistics: http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics). This leaves the "strangers in the alley risk" in about 18% of the "real risk". Proposing that women should never get engaged in romantic relationships and never trust males, would be equally sexist but about 60% more efficient in actually preventing sexual assault. I am also concerned that this "argument", however well sourced it may be, is considered a reasonable question on women attepmting to explain that it's a myth, not a fact. Facts are on the ladies on this one, I think (I hear other opinions too, of course). 2. Trivialising approach I think this one deserves a little more investigation. Several slutwalks around the world (and that's why I insist on mentioning them as well) are not just "walks" but actual organizations, which take action on serveral different problems, not just the "sluttyness" itself. 2. Culturally insensitive Same as before, I think slutwalks around the world are colorful and divese in this aspect, and also the Slutwalk has been appropiated by all and any woman in the world who thought on this as a tool rather than an imposition. I'm not looking to argue about this, just saying that showing a bit more on what slutwalk actually is will balance the "toronto-centrism" of the critics. 3. Male-defined vocabulary I think this is a candent debate, even within the movement. I think the re-apporpibation of words is a technique which can be criticised for this, so this is not actually a reaction to the slutwalk in particular. Also, I object this statement placed all the way to the top, right after the description of the movement. Is it common practice to place such critics as part of the description? If so, I think it is needed to add the fact that Slutwalks are giving "slut" the slightly-different approach of identifying "slut" with a term used when a woman acts on her own free will. Otherwise it would sound like they never thought about the question and just went on to call themselves whatever someone else was caling them. Also, I find it very strange to state that " Of the four names suggested (Slutwalk, End the Shame, Yes Means Yes and Shame Stop), SlutWalk remained the favourite, though half the voters had voted against the old name." This is a very common thing to happen when people vote! Voting is about getting more votes than the rest, not about an absolute majority (with some exceptions). Even if the source does mention the matter, I fail to see how it is relevant to anything at all (doesn't even sound as a relevant fact for voting either!). 4. Pornification I would like to see more information on "why" they consider it "pornification", for instance, and I would like to add many Slutwalks instruct their participants to "dress as they feel comfortable", so the "pornification" goes on the individuals who feel lik it. So, these are a few thoughts on this, I'll go on looking up good sources for any information on the Slutwalks.Luxxxbella (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Luxxxbella - Wikipedia is not the place to carry on the debate about SlutWalk - merely to represent it clearly. The responses section documents a variety of responses to the phenomenon. It is not really relevant whether you agree with them, and in order to remove any of them you would need to demonstrate that they were not based on reliable sources. Any contributions must represent a neutral point of view - your essay above shows that you may be too involved with one side of the debate to contribute here helpfully. Are you willing to be impartial? Hyper3 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally we would avoid making decisions about what to put in the article based solely on the opinions of editors, or at least, we wouldn't say that's why we're making the changes ;). There's a culture on Wikipedia of preservation of information and "covering the debate" especially for a contentious issue like this. So while you'll probably never get consensus to outright delete some of these criticisms of the Slutwalks, what you can do is add more material to balance them out. So I think it would be a good idea for you to do some more research, and see if you can find some responses to those criticisms. Don't let these recent setbacks hold you back. Please continue to be bold and we'll work with you to improve the article. PraetorianFury (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

PF - seems like we agree abount something! :) Hyper3 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you're saying and maybe I haven't made myself clear enough.

I get that it's not about our opinions or debating. I was trying to get help on understanding wiki policies and somehow got lost in the process... I'm not trying to argue against these points of view, nor am I looking for their deletion, just to understand how am I wiki-allowed to work on them.

I'll try to re-phrase, if you don't mind.

1. "Risk-management" There is no factual evidence that a woman's dress has ever, anywhere actually prevented any risk related to rape. In a way, I sense it is much like adding a response to "Boobquake" from a respected journalist who stated in the news that "boobs DO cause earthquakes!". Are the facts behind the sayings relevant, or someone saying it out loud in the news is enough? If it's ok for everyone, I'm more than fine with it, I'm just trying to understand how it works.

2 and 3: These are critics which point at the diversity of the movement. I was wondering if it wasn't depriving the article of neutrality to include responses to its (lack of) diversity, but not acknowledge it in the article, not even in the shape of a list (which we agreed to work on, and I will, but I want to know if I'm viewing it the right way).

4. I think this would also require adequate balance, which I think we're in the process of solving with the new "objectives" section.

As a final note, I do realise it's a subject I find deeply interesting, and still (or "because of it") I'm more than willing to work on neutrality and balance. I know this might also be a very sensitive subject to test my (lack of) expertice, but I find it exciting as well and promise to do my best to keep things in line. Thanks for bearing with me this far :) Luxxxbella (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1: You say, "there's no factual evidence", but according to whom? You? You could say the same thing about religion, but we cover all kinds of evidence-less stuff with regards to religion. We don't report criticisms because they are true, we report them because they are notable. And if a criticism is notable and not true, usually there is a counter-criticism which we would then include to balance it. Rather than deleting things you believe are nonsense, trust that reality is its own advocate, and the truth will always present itself as more believable.

2 - 3: I think once we have a bit more to say about the many varied rallies, that will solve this problem.

4: Personally, I think this is an example of the divide between sex-positive and sex-negative feminists. Sex-negative feminists will oppose anything sexual and these rallies are no exception. But I digress. Again, my opinion of how silly it is doesn't matter, it is a notable criticism so we should cover it. If there are counter-criticisms or refutations, feel free to include them.

PraetorianFury (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, I think I'm actually getting somewhere :D

As I said before, it is not my intention to convince anyone of deleting anything. Actually, I think what you mention hits exactly the point. Let's suppose I do come across a reliable source on why clothes do not affect rape rates in any significant manner. Even though I'm confident I can find it, it is also likely it won't be related to the Slutwalk, and even less likely that it's an answer to that specific response. And that's where I'm not sure on where would I be allowed to place the evidence. Not after the response, I guess, but would it be admissible all the way to the top, right after the words of Sanguinetti? Or somewhere in the middle? Or does it also depend on the kind of sources I find? Also, still supposing I find good material disproving these sayings, does it affect the possible neutrality of the article, or is this considered a minor detail? I'm not trying to get specific answers for this, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction. I just wouldn't like to start adding information in a misguided way, which would end up with me asking stuff here anyway...

The rest of the points are covered by now I guess.

I just feel like saying it one more time: I'm not pushing to get anything deleted, I don't want to undo anyone's work, and I'm not trying to insert my personal point of view in the article. I just want to edit and add interesting accurate information on the subjects I care about (I honestly don't see myself spending days of research on screwdrives or exotic kinds of insects or whatever). I'm sorry for the times I miss the point, it's just that I find this so interesting and fun to do! Thank you. Luxxxbella (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be great to find quotes that address the responses to Slutwalk currently in the article. Unfortunately, they do have to have a reference to Slutwalk or else it is WP:SYN. It could be placed in a different article that is directly about, say, clothing and rape, and a hyperlink used to lead to that article. Hyper3 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see, I think I understand. Sounds good for me, since I've found something I was not expecting: clothing is hardly related to rape rates, but it is directly linked to victim-blaming from others. It does sound like there could be a nice, independent article on the subject (and I could give you all a break as well, haha)Luxxxbella (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that this is not the only article related to rape and sexual abuse. It is not our responsibility to cover every aspect of that discussion on that page. This page is specifically for Slutwalks, and only material related to that. What you're describing might be a more appropriate addition to Causes_of_rape, or other related articles. We don't have to cover everything on every page. If you can find sources to support your conclusion, I'd be shocked if it wasn't already on Wikipedia somewhere. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're absolutely right about that. The reason I focused on that particular saying in this article is that, given it's the reason the whole thing started, I think it's only fair to document it as accurately as possible. I'm sure it is not the same thing to read an article which acknowledges the saying to be a myth, than an article which doesn't. I know my personal rules don't apply, so I'll be happy to find a way to add the information in a legitimate way (I ended up finding more material related to Slutwalk and sexual assault statistics than I expected at first). Thanks for the adivice! I'll be checking out a few different articles, that might also give me a wider view of what I'm trying to do.Luxxxbella (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I felt like adding here a note regarding my latest edits.

I think the "Inception" section now reflects much more accurately the nature of Sanguinetti's sayings, and therefore, the "risk-management" bullsh... statements :D

I digged up information from all sources which were already in the article. Maybe if we had documented the facts with equal zeal as the criticism, the article would have been balanced (and accurate) all along.

Please let's keep that in mind in the future. Luxxxbella (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Balance" in the lead?

Ok, here's the question: is there some special sort of balance considered for the lead? or also: is it actually considered balanced to give space to specific criticisms on the lead?

I would tend to believe (from my Wikipedia-outsider criteria) such a short (or not-so-long) article might actually be unbalanced if criticism is given a space/importance nearly as much as the description of the movement itself. This kinda happened in the body of article (not so much now, I believe), so I would also think this should be taken into account when balancing the lead. If I'm too much off the mark, all guidance is helpful :)

In search for a reference point, I went to the articles for Boobquake, FEMEN and Take Back The Night for a view of simmilar articles. All of them include responses or criticism, but none in the lead -it only contains the description of the movement. I also tried a different topic, and went to see Greenpeace, which has its own page for Criticism of Greenpeace as well as a Criticism section inside the article. The space given to criticism in the lead is one final sentence in a four paragraph description, and it mentions no specific responses, only acknowledges controversy and legal actions against the organization.

I'm not against having criticism or controversy mentioned in the lead, but I do believe stating specific criticism (as male-definde vocabulary and pornification) in the lead makes it look like it's at least as important as the movement (which is worldwide, unlike most of the critics. Just sayin' :P).

I believe a sentence acknowledging criticism/responses/controvery would be much more suitable. Luxxxbella (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Luxxx - the best way to establish these things is by going to the Manual of Style: WP:MOS where there are links to artices in more detail - in this case MOS:LEAD. This is also how any disputes should be solved. Going to other articles is unfortunately not necessarily a great a way of finding out how to do things. in the lead paragraph (of the article on lead paragraphs!) it says:"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Hyper3 (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstandings, I'm not trying to fund my position on what I find on other articles, I'm only trying to be proactive in finding examples on how the rules apply.

I think our disagreement right now may reside in what we consider "prominent" controversies. Editors at Greepeace seem to think a whole lot controversy is only prominent enough for a short, general sentence. I know it's not about them, but I'd like a view on why you think specific criticism is so vital in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxxbella (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead summarises what the article says: therefore we are looking to recap all the verifiable material that has been collected so far. It appears that two important parts of the SlutWalk story are the reclaiming of the word slut in the face of slut-shaming, and the acting out of this idea on the marches by wearing clothes that reference the word "slut." The responses to these ideas are that this is allowing male-defined vocabulary to dominate, and that protest using nudity is a further demonstration of the sexualization of modern Western culture. This is currently only one sentence at the end, and it may be necessary to add further to this in order to truly summarise the article - particlarly the cultural sensitivity material. The "prominence" of these ideas can be found in the fact that this is overwhelmingly what the media turns to when it discusses SlutWalk, and therefore this is the material we have to work with. This may seem unfair to the movement that wants to talk about other things, but we can only use what verifiable sources give us. Hyper3 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I get what you're saying.

I would like to begin with a disclaimer: I have no problem with criticism. Social and political movements are my area of study, and I understand responses from society are key to understanding those movements. I'm not picking into criticism because I don't like it, but because it is what appeared to me as unbalanced when I first read this article, and I thought I might help (and create a little mess, why not :)

I agree on the description you make of the article at the moment; however, I think the article right now is lacking due weight because criticism has been documented with somehow more detail than the movement istelf. For a short example, there were answers to Sanguinetti's sayings from both the Police Chief (i.e. his boss) and co-foundr Barnett, which were not in the text. I found them on the sources which were already in the article, I didn't need to look any further. Not only that, but those sayings (especially the Chief's) were key to understanding the "Risk-management" criticism. I don't know if adding this information was fair to the movement, but I do think it was fair to the article.

I would also point out that SlutWalk is not actually a debate (as in evolusion-crationism) with two parts in it, but a social movement which is critiziced (as in, there would be no criticism if there wasn't SlutWalk in the first place). So I would expect such an article to have a properly detailed description of the movement, at least as detailed as the criticism. Especially if we surely have sources for that :)

Here's my offer: let's work together.

I have been gathering information from what I think are acceptable sources (I would like us to take into account Anglo-American focus and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias for a more complete and accurate article) and my intentions are expanding the article with a more detailed view of the different SlutWalks around the world.

We can work together on completing the article, and we can probably get new criticism and/or responses from all those sources.

What I would propose then, is that we leave a general sentence on the lead while we work, and once we have a better article, we can redo the lead altogether, if we please, and I won't mind us stating specific criticism in a balanced way.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxxbella (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(I also forget to sign posts) Luxxxbella (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good for the article to expand the description, as long as it doesn't become a long list of places where it happened! More on the narrative, better descriptions of the aims etc. When that has happened, the lead can be reviewed. Because the guidelines recommend it, at the same time the categories of controversy need to be updated to reflect their range. If you can find reliable sources that mention Slutwalk and respond to the criticism, it would make for a better article too. Hyper3 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Because the guidelines recommend it, at the same time the categories of controversy need to be updated to reflect their range."

I'm not really sure what you mean... Luxxxbella (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In answer, Ive just done it by adding a third important aspet of contoversy to the lead. Now I think the lead covers these issues adequately, although not yet equally. Reall a whole paragraph needs writing. Hyper3 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this straight: you are saying that by noting every bit of criticsm in the article as well as the lead, we follow WP:NPOV .

However, you also say we cannot add even a short and incomplete list of the cities around the world because of WP:LAUNDRY (even when the project itself states: The goal of Wikiproject:Laundromat is to scrub laundry lists from articles when they detract from an article's usefulness, and to salvage usable content from those laundry lists into readable, encyclopedic text. A list is sometimes the best way of presenting detailed material; this project is not intended to remove such lists.)

I find it hard to see how this combination can result in a balanced article, and I see two practical consequences to it:

1. The article looks like it was written by someone way more interested in criticism than in the movement itself.

2. It's very much likely to disappoint a person who's looking for information on international Slutwalks, which is why I'm bringing forward WP:BIAS (also applies for 1, actually)

I'm personally much more interested in improving the article than in discussing with you (or anyone for that matter), and I don't mind doing all the research and adding all information on my own. I'm also not bothered by the criticism in the lead- I really don't care that much.

But I will take my chances and ask: are you willing to be impartial? Luxxxbella (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have found that no matter what my own personal opinion on any subject may be, that keeping to the guidelines creates an impartial article. Therefore I like to confine my comments to that. It is an asset to find someone else who is interested in the article enough to do some research on both the topic and wikipedia guidelines. Please continue to do both. You have summarised more or less what I think the guidelines say (not entirely accurately, but then we get into the details). You are at liberty to challenge those points of view: however, I would suggest that you use the words and phrases found in the guidelines as evidence to show me where I have gone wrong. A closer reading of them often produces a better application.

I think that an encyclopedia article will disappoint anyone who expects it to agree with their point of view. If anyone wants information on current events, they should go to the organisation's website: this is not a role wikipedia is meant to fulfil. Equally, a list of every historic SlutWalk is not encyclopedic, hard to verify and boring to read. A link to a separate article called "cities that have hosted SlutWalk" that takes the form of a list might be considered notable enough to survive, but might not.

Please add further reliably sourced material to correct any problems that you see!!! Hyper3 (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The list isn't hard to verify because we have citations for every city o.0, and we have all kinds of lists floating around Wikipedia. Lists of "historic" things are the very definition of encyclopedic. And what difference does it make if you think something is "boring"? There's lots of stuff on Wikipedia I think is boring but you don't see me removing it. I have no idea where you're coming from with that last paragraph.

Just a heads up, I'm re-deleting the bit on Aura Blogando as I wasn't able to verify the author's significance nor the site's reliability. Let me know if there's something I'm missing, which is entirely possible. PraetorianFury (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PraetorianFury on the verifiablity of the list. I would add that protests from 2011 and 2012 (as are many SlutWalks not documented yet in the article but ready in verifiable sources) is hardly "current events", it's merely what SlutWalk is made of. Either that, or the whole SlutWalk movent is itself a current event. (Which is kinda why Wikipedia is so awesome... you can get encycolpedic material on current or even ongoing events)

I have added a template regarding the lack of worldwide coverage in the article.

How about we temporarily leave the list in the article, while I work on a better worldwide coverage? Luxxxbella (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove the template, just like I'm not pushing the cities list back in the article. Let's talk about it first, then we decide :) You can also check WP:BIAS for a wider view of where this comes from. Luxxxbella (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide coverage

As you might have noticed, I added a section for Latin America. I selected Argentina and Brazil for being the countries with most Slutwalks (the alphabetical order also appealed to me), though I still have a few countries to add. Spelling, grammar and miscellaneous corrections are welcome :)

After Latin America, I'll dedicate some time to US and Canada, since those were the earliest walks and they are hardly mentioned at all. Then I'll move on to the rest of the world. There's lots of interesting stuff going on, mind you ;) Luxxxbella (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added a fragment on Singapore, just so my lack of time doesn't make the article look so much like one of a mainly Latinamerican movement. Luxxxbella (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had time to thoroughly review your most recent changes, and I'm going on a vacation pretty soon. After I'm back, if I have time, I'll give the article a complete once over and correct any problems I can find. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and have a great vacation! I'll be right here adding things for you to read when you're back :D Luxxxbella (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos

So I added a photo I happened to take (just happened to be at the location) at a 'slutwalk' in Chicago:

Attendees of the 2013 Chicago Slutwalk

user:PraetorianFury messaged me that my photo had been removed from the article by user:Hyper3, so i added it again, and User:Hyper3 suggested that we discuss it here, which i think is a good idea. As it stands now, there are only a few photos that illustrate the article. I agree that the current layout (as of the moment that I am posting this) it does look cluttered. I am a big fan of the arrangement of this article with each section having one photo and each photo being displayed on the left and the right as the user scrolls down the page. It makes for easy reading and easy viewing.

user:Hyper3, as it stands right now there are 4 photos in the article including mine. Looking on commons there are a few more photos that may work to illustrate the topics covered in the article (if the Milennium Park article I like so much is to be something of a guideline here). I don't think that all these sections we have photos for yet, but I do think that we could arrange the photos we do have better to illustrate the article. There are images on commons from Brazil, Chicago, London, Knoxville, Toronto, Tel Aviv, San Francisco and possibly more. And here are the topics they could be illustating (with my suggestions):

1 History (perhaps File:Toronto-Slutwalk.jpg since it is historic and illustrates the first event) 1.1 Inception 1.2 First march and consequent growth 1.3 India and the world (perhaps a triple image should go here, with as much geographic diversity, to illustrate the variation in geography?) 2 Objective of the Rallies 3 Responses 3.1 Risk management 3.2 Trivialising approach 3.3 Culturally insensitive 3.4 Male-defined vocabulary 3.5 Pornification 4 References 5 External links

I think that it is important to mention that my interest in this is not per the content of the article , but more that the article is illustrated effectively. Before i happened across the event in Chicago, I had no idea that such an event existed. I looked on Wikipedia and I saw that there was a section about the article that said that there was a world movement to this and I only saw one photo of a march in New York City, and I thought that my photo might illustrate a broader movement int he section that it is appropriate towards. However looking at it now, I think that the images I list above world work and the images of the 4 women's backsides and the little girl would not work, but that's just my opinion!

user:Hyper3, what do you think? Would you like to assist me in this effort to better arrange the photos to illustrate the topic?Victor Grigas (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the article has the maximum number of photos required. I think that one photo illustrating the inception with a march theme, one representing nudity in protest, one illustrating the counter point of view is enough. We cant have a picture from each venue. The very helpful quote boxes make it difficult to add more without it becoming cluttered or hard to read in some browsers. Hyper3 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the quote boxes, but i disagree about the photos - what if an image like this exists:

Slutwalks around the world

Slutwalk Toronto, Canada 2012

Slutwalk in Tel Aviv

Slutwalk in Munich

Brazil Slutwalk

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course many possible illustrative photos exist - but what do they add to the article? Its a march - that only takes one photo to make the point. Then we are looking to illustrate the rest of the debate. Putting too many in makes it cluttered. Please refer to WP:LAYIM as it is the guideline we should use. We might also consider WP:IG as a way of adding more - but these particular photos would be repetitive and fail to add to our understanding. Hyper3 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:LAYIM does not apply to galleries such as Victor's example, and a gallery for a topic can definitely add to our understanding, by showing that substantial marches take place in different countries. Your point would be valid against multiple photos from the exact same event, but Victor's example is not that, and genuinely adds to the encyclopedic value IMHO. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:IG suggests that a link to Wikimedia Commons is more appropriate when a gallery would end up being labelled "images of [article title]" rather than something more descriptive. Hyper3 (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just added a photo for Brasilia Slutwalk, since the article looked a little bare after I've been expanding the text. I selected that particular image because Brazil is one of the countries with most Slutwalks (at least within Latin America), its section has the longest text, and it illustrates the Catholic-themed costumes mentioned in the text. Any comments welcome :) Luxxxbella (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I added an image from Costa Rica as well, with a sign relative to the sayings which sparked the protests in that country. I think there's still room in the article for one or two more images without it becoming image-crowded, but unfortunately I haven't seen many more in Wikimedia Commons which might be meaningful. I'm still working on adding information of the movement worldwide, so it's also possible we will need to add a few more images as the volume of text increases? Luxxxbella (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)