Talk:YesAllWomen

Notability?

Not to demean any causes, but this is an article about a Twitter hashtag that is five days old. Are we absolutely sure this fits with the notability guidelines? I mean, five days is an awful short amount of time for something to have "helped illustrate how pervasive the gendered violence, harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination women continue to face around the world."24.152.180.71 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The notability seems pretty clear to me. Regarding the content issue, I think I've fixed it: [1]. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the IP editor brings up a good point regarding notability guidelines. Seems reasonable to consider if this should be a stand alone article or should instead be merged into 2014 Isla Vista Massacre page and/or related feminism pages.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how this is notable. It's a little ridiculous to set a precedent to make an article for every hashtag that had some level of attention; for instance, #Bringbackourgirls just redirects to the article on the kidnappings. This should, at best, be a redirect into 2014 Isla Vista killings#Debate about misogyny. Rhydic (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the articles I've seen about the hashtag consider the hashtag as the primary subject, and only discuss the killings in relation to the hashtag's origin. e.g. Daily Beast, Forbes, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, LA Times. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion articles do little to support the need for this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a way to validate shared sentiment. 59.167.110.137 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I created this, so I should chime in about why I thought it was notable. I agree with Odie that while the movement may have started because of one violent act, it quickly transformed into much more than that. That's why I feel it deserves a page where it's separate from the article about the killings. As a side note (and a response to the social media comment), I think we should consider that social media is a space where a lot of women speak out, unlike on the rest of the internet. Perhaps we should consider some leniency with our idea of notability when we want more representation of women (content-wise and editor-wise) on Wikipedia. Also, though you may consider the references op-eds, they're in legitimate sources that typically meet notability requirements. Jami430 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on whether this should have an article (although the thought of every transiently popular Twitter meme getting a Wikipedia article is alarming), but it's worth noting that Wikipedia generally expects the subjects of articles to demonstrate notability over an extended period of time rather than in a brief burst of news coverage. If they're still talking about this one two weeks or two months from now, it would clearly be notable; but if the media coverage dies down quickly, it may not pass the notability test after all. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's notable now, then it's notable. See Notability is not temporary. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not feel this article is notable and was surprised to see it even existed. I haven't heard it discussed anywhere in media - at all (but personally obv.). I would support this article being merged into or redirecting to the 2014 Isla Vista killings#Debate about misogyny page. I do not agree that a stand alone article on a twitter hashtag should exist. A Canadian Toker 04:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

Present or past tense?

It's been about a week or so since this hashtag started to gain traction and it isn't trending anymore on any social network. Given the naturally fast pace of social media and the mainstream media who only make mention of topics like this which virtually always go forgotten relatively quickly, is it not appropriate that this short-lived, slacktivist hashtag be rewritten in the past tense? 107.226.24.237 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't think the article should be written entirely in past tense, since the hashtag is still used. But I've changed some of the tenses back to what I hope is a possible compromise. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Hashtag

I've added information about some news peoples who were critical of the hash tag, as it related to the Isla Vista Shootings. I added the following from the corresponding section on the Isla vista section to balance out the neutrality of this article.

Some women, such as Samantha Levine, a columnist at The Daily Beast, argued that women conflating their experiences with dress codes and men whistling with Rodger's violent attacks risks women who have been actual victims of violence using the hashtag not being taken seriously. Other examples of trivializing #YesAllWomen tweets included of "I’ve never seen a hot husband with a fat wife on a sitcom" and women being asked to smile.

A Canadian Toker 04:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the cited addition. I tweaked it slightly to avoid weasel words. The example tweets are a bit confusing, and the sentence is not grammatically correct. Are they examples of women posting situations which would trivialize the hashtag, or examples of tweets which are intended to trivialize the hashtag? --Odie5533 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Odie, I am unsure if the they are examples of women unintentionally trivializing the hashtag or people intentionally trivializing it. I merely grabbed it from the Isla Vista article. A Canadian Toker 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

NotAllMen Redirects to this page

I do not think having 'NotAllMen' redirect to this page is wise. This article's only mention of the NotAllMen twitter hastag is the sentence It was also a response to another hashtag, "#NotAllMen"

If we are going to maintain the redirect from NotAllMen to this page I think it is important to try and integrate a bit more information about the NotAllMen hashtag and why the YesAllWomen tweeters felt they needed to respond to NotAllMen. I would preferably remove the NotAllMen redirect to this article and remove the sentence talking about it. Thoughts?A Canadian Toker 04:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't use the existence of the redirect as the impetus to expand the article in one direction or another, though it could use a bit of background about the other hashtag. There's not really a better place for the redirect to go, so if not here then the redirect could just be deleted since we don't have anything discussing it. This page doesn't need to incorporate NotAllMen just because it's a redirect. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should remove the redirect. If the NotAllMen hashtag is that noteworthy it should get its own page. I don't think it should even mentioned here.A Canadian Toker 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

YesAllWomen was created in response to NotAllMen, so not mentioning it is rather silly. However, YesAllWomen got a lot of coverage, while NotallMen did not, so it's better to keep the redirect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that not mentioning NotAllMen is silly, although I'm not sure why it's notable enough to deserve a redirect (which implies it will be talked about in depth) or even more than a passing mention. - Shiori (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that YesAllWomen be merged into 2014 Isla Vista killings. I think that the content in the YesALlWomen article can easily be explained in the context of the isla vista shootings. Having a standalone article for a tweet hashtag related to the shootings is unnecessary. Merging the information into this article will not cause any problems in the Isla Vista article as far as article size is concerned. This hastag is not a discreet subject and it does not warrant its own page.

• Overlap: This article almost completely overlaps the information contained in the Isla Vista article.
• Text: It is unlikely that this page will ever be exapanded. Its not even trending any more
• Context: this article is short and relies heavily on the context of the 2014 Isla Vista killings

Discussion

• Support: for reasons above

A Canadian Toker 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

PS I would suggest merging it into the 2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny section. A Canadian Toker 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

• Oppose - For the following reasons:

1. As noted in the header of this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia."

2. As noted in the header of this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia."

3. As of today, this hashtag still comes up in the news with regard to broader conversations about gender relations that have expanded beyond the Isla Vista killings, Odie5533 makes a similar point in the notability section of this talk. --Formidiable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formidiable (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Anybody can add a Wikiproject, and those are templates automatically added. An article being in scope of a Wikiproject does not automatically make it notable. I'm not gonna comment on your third point, just wanted to note that. Tutelary (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even if the article is merged, the redirect would remain, and the redirect could be tagged to those projects. I think only time will tell if this tag has staying power.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - hashtag alone is sufficiently notable for its own page. Not all hashtags are sufficiently notable but this one is. snug (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)