Talk:Rebecca Watson

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Not notable

Really? She has a blog and been interviewed a few times, that's it. Wikipedia has gone down the tubes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.242.39 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't see why this individual meris a Wiki page. Her accomplishments are consistent with what any person with an interest in an area could easily accomplish in a netvironment.

sadly she comes across like an internet Paris Hilton: famous for being famous (though, sadly, Paris is actually famous). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incitatus (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article was Nominated for Deletion in 2008 on grounds of Notability and the consensus of editors was to Keep. It is odd that some people have such a strong objection to the existence of an article on someone they claim has no public profile.Martinlc (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think she's notable, simply because I'm not a skeptic, a misogynist or a feminist, but I looked her up on Wikipedia just to see what all the fuss was about. Carlo (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTABILITY & namely WP:BASIC, a "person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." So we can go back and forth about whether the subject has a notable blog, but until those secondary sources (Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and several other articles a federated journal search might yield, but haven't been added here yet) stop existing, the subject's notability remains sufficient per Wikipedia's policy. What I "think" about her notability is not relevant.

This article could certainly stand to be cleaned up, and updated to include additional secondary sources as mentioned, as well as to ensure that due weight is achieved to balance the subject's professional & skepticism contributions with controversies. I'll try and get to that in the coming weeks.Nmillerche (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing what you come up with Nmillerche. Sgerbic (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that she causes so many sad, scared, little men to froth with impotent internet rage is notable enough, n'est-ce pas? 99.17.4.108 (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question she is not notable. Even as a fellow atheist there is very little on her. She writes a blog. Cool. So does millions of other people. I think this wiki page is just created by the fanboys/fangirls of her who believe the patriarchy is out to get them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernal Demon (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

if you can't even point to the part that is supposedly not neutral I'm going to consider you a troll-Vera (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is neutral it's the fact she's not a notable person that maters. Oh, and the adult thing to do for a wikimedia commons admin is to consider people who disagree with you "trolls"? What kind of sense does that make? Infernal Demon (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

your claim that this article was written by fans is unfounded, she is prominent enough to be attacked by Richard Dawkins for an offhand comment. Nominating an article for deletion after you failed to insert libelous content are the actions of a troll - Vera (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Libelous content? The things I added were 100% true. they were removed for not being original content. Infernal Demon (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh it seems you are the troll because you probably believe I am part of the Patriarchy. XD Infernal Demon (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

She was attacked by Dawkins? That's merely your opinion. One that isn't particularly NPOV or in accordance with an assumption of good faith. As to the notion that this shows notability... It is not even close to being sufficient to show that. It only shows that she was at least notable enough for him to stumble upon, by which standard almost all of the internet may be declared as being notable. That is simply not enough.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has more than enough secondary sources to have the article pass WP:Notability. If you disagree with this, please detail specific items in the Notability guidelines that are not valid for this article. Caidh (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"The subject is not notable because I say she's not notable, therefore she is not notable" -- this is not an argument. PS, please learn to use proper talk page format. I've taken the liberty of fixing it for you. Metao (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Infernal Demon needs to consult WP:Notability and point out what parts of it that this article fails to comply with, if it is indeed not notable (I, personally, have no particular opinion on the matter). Also speculations on the bad motives of those who create/maintain an article, has no place here (oh, and check Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation, as per what Metao said) ...and 1Veertje/Vera needs to consult Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You can't just declare people to be a troll, as easily as that. Not on wikipedia, at any rate. That rather goes against not just policy, but one of the five pillars (i.e. being civil).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"In front of"

I have reverted an edit claiming that Rebecca said she was tired and wanted to go to sleep in front of the "elevator guy", on the basis of it being original research, not backed up by the cited source. This was then re-reverted by the same editor... While I wouldn't say that this constitutes edit warring (though it veers towards it), it is certainly not proper behaviour. I would encourage said editor (OldFishHouse), to discuss the issue, rather then continue such actions, as they are utterly unconstructive and can easily escalate into full on edit warring.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The new source was wholly unambiguous: "broke away from the group", he group being described in the previous paragraph. Restoring the original text with additional reference material is wholly appropriate, unlike adding OR tags for the plainly obvious.Novangelis (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wholly unambiguous? How so? Yes, she says "broke away from the group" (this may very well be an assumption by Rebecca, but lets assume it's true). This does not mean that what she said, was said "in front of" the man, nor does this mean that the man would have been able to hear it. I have been in such large groups myself (how do I know it's a large group? Well, it was a convention ...and either way, it could be a large group. The mere possibility is, for the purposes of this discussion, more than enough), and I can confirm that this is not always possible. She only really states that he was at the bar, not that what she said, was said in front of him.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How on earth can accurate tagging, be described as disruptive tagging!? Furthermore, this is an issue being discussed. If you do not like the tag, discuss it. Don't simply revert it. A participant in a discussion, making edits to a part that is under discussion, is not really acceptable behaviour, you know.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fanciful challenges such as "been able to hear it", speculating on crowd size, and ironic original research ("I can confirm") in order to justify an unjustifiable tag is just tendentious editing--and the ongoing reversions are edit warring.Novangelis (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Does the source confirm that the crowd was small enough for the man to hear? Does it confirm that the man heard? More importantly, does that source confirm that Rebecca Watson was "in front of" the specific man in question? No. As to ongoing revisions... So you admit that you have committed an act of edit warring, then?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The devil's advocate argument is "she isn't saying she said it in front of him" even though she is saying "[he] wait[ed] for her to express a desire to go to sleep", and is saying that it was inappropriate of him to disregard what she just said. And unless Watson assumed this man was a mindreader this interpretation makes no sense.

Watson's talked of this episode many times-this being one of those times when his presence is explicitly described: "I was invited back to the hotel room of a man I had never spoken to before and who was present to hear me say that I was exhausted and wanted to go to bed."[1] The claim is verified in the first source and confirmed by the one I just linked. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote "[he] wait[ed] for her to express a desire to go to sleep" is problematic the added "he" and "ed", are speculation. She says "After all, it seemed rather obvious to me that if your goal is to get sex or even just companionship, the very worst way to go about attaining that goal is to attend a conference, listen to a woman speak for 12 hours about how uncomfortable she is being sexualized at conferences, wait for her to express a desire to go to sleep, follow her into an isolated space, and then suggest she go back to your hotel room for “coffee,” which, by the way, is available at the hotel bar you just left.". This does not mean that, that is exactly what she claimed happened in the incident in question. To claim it does, is speculation.

As to your second quote... yes the bit about "present to hear me say", does verify that Rebecca Watson claimed that the man heard it (it still doesn't back up the words "in front of", though). It doesn't confirm it to be true, but it does verify that, that is what she claims. If the citation is replaced with the one you mention, and the sentence is modified to reflect that it is what she claims (which the source does verify) as well as re-wording it ("in front of" is, as I said, not verified), rather than what actually happened (for which there doesn't exist any reliable source).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying "present to hear me" is different than "I said in front of" in some reasonable, meaningful way? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume that her description, as reported in sources, is open to some interpretation. Either way, we definitely know that she expressed a desire to sleep, the guy followed her, and offered her coffee. We don't know for sure that he heard her say she wanted to sleep. So we only really have one choice to remove us interpreting: quote her (or paraphrase her) more accurately, so that the interpretation is left to the reader. How about we just change the sentence to paraphrase her a little better. Something like: She claims that the man followed her to the elevator and invited her to his room for coffee and a conversation, after she had earlier stated that she was tired and wanted to go to bed. This more closely follows the quote in the source, and leaves it to the reader to decide whether the man heard her or not - as it was left to the reader in her initial statement. Thoughts? Metao (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Sounds fine.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to the reader to decide whether he was able to hear her. The Slate article says that he was a part of the group she had been speaking to for a while before she "announced" her desire to sleep. The source cited by Professor Marginalia explicitly says, "present to hear me say." OldFishHouse (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Slight correction there: It's not up to Rebecca Watson, to decide whether he was able to hear her, either. The Slate article says he was part of the group. That confirms nothing. The source cited by Professor Marginalia does, however says that Rebecca Watson claims he was "present to hear" the statement(s).

It confirms that she claims it, yes. It does not, however, confirm that he actually did hear it. It should be phrased in such a way, as to reflect that, much like the modifications to the other parts, that I recently made.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Slate article says he was part of the group, but it also says she "announced" her desire to sleep, implying that the group as a whole was listening when she said it. Suggesting that he might not have heard it for some reason seems, as Novangelis pointed out, like unnecessary speculation. Also, the fact that this account is based on her statements alone is given by the first sentence in the section, which says, "Watson described an experience she had." OldFishHouse (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

While you are quite correct in saying that the idea of him not hearing her is speculation, I would add that the idea of him hearing her is also speculation. We don't know ...and she has not, in any of the sources, claimed that he did.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok...so let me get this straight. Because this anonymous man in Watson's anecdote may have, in real life, conceivably, failed hearing what she said she said, the complaint here is that "in the presence of" should not be paraphrased as "in front of". Even while the citation that used the word "present" also said "to hear" (which is, after all, the editors' objection "did he hear?") and the claim as paraphrased here doesn't. Frankly - this makes no sense and is seems to spring from a desire to frame the debate (did he hear it?/did he not?) very very differently than any of the three sources cited have done. The man in the elevator isn't on trial here-he's an anonymous nobody. Watson's encounter on the elevator itself is not notable here. What is, arguably anyway, notable is the fallout or ripple effects that followed her using it to offer "what not to do" advice. That is the focus of both of the published sources, not this "did he/didn't he" business over what the man heard etc. This isn't Court TV. We're not here to investigate or second guess the who did whats in the elevator. We need to reflect the same angle on the story that sources focus on, though frankly-all three are opinion pieces and we should keep that firmly in mind when describing them here. We need to very briefly summarize those opinions without assuming any of them here. I think the whole section should be stripped down and the incident be given three or four sentences, max. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support that. The section overall seems to be attempting to provide the reader with enough information to form an opinion on the controversy, which makes it seem unencyclopedic. A more brief summary might prevent edit wars in the future. OldFishHouse (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of the meaning of the phrase "in front of" is very much lacking. It has nothing to do with whether or not he heard her, but rather has everything to do with her position/direction relative to his position/direction. For example: If he, say, had his back to her at the time (or even better, if she had her back to him), she would not be in front of him. Perhaps you should have asked for a clarification of what I meant by it, rather than simply make an assumption of what I meant. Especially given that it had confused you, which would suggest that you did not understand what I meant. As to the suggestion of making the description more brief: Yeah, sure. Makes sense.

Your speculation about the motivation (where you say "seems to spring from a desire to frame the debate") goes straight against Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You have no basis for such speculation, and it has no place on wikipedia (it, indeed, goes against guidelines and policy). You may argue against what I say or suggest, but speculations on why I do so, you may not. You may argue against my arguments, but not against me. That is simply not acceptable.

As to us not being here to second guess the actual events... If you were merely making things clear, so that nobody would be tempted to do so, then that is fine. If you are trying to claim, or even just imply, that I have done so, then that is wrong and inappropriate, as I have done nothing of the kind.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your bureaucratic fingerwagging those disagreeing (I'm not the first) is not helping your argument at all. So save your breath. I'll say this --again-- because you're having some difficulty with what I'm saying. Who said anything about "what he heard"? The SOURCE said "who was present to hear me say". This article here on wikipedia didn't--and didn't use the term "hear". You disputed "said in front of" as if it was painting a completely different picture than what the source said in terms of what he heard, and back and forth over this pedantic detour has inspired a nomination to the Hall of Flame. I know that this supposed gulf between "said in the presence of" and what this guy may or may not have heard warranted no mention whatsoever from the two independent sources cited. So why are we fixating on it here? As I said, the whole section should be rewritten to reflect what's notable about the incident per the sources cited, which wasn't "the incident" but "the aftermath". We need to get rid of the all that "then he said then she said then he did then she did" crap because it's not encyclopedic. But we should not erroneously claim instead it is "unsourced" and suck editors into this adversarial who dunnit style cross examination of claims in the sources which editors are not allowed to do! Sources frame the debate. Not us. And by that standard the "what he heard" is a non-starter.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not "fingerwagged", bureaucratically or not, against anything because of it disagreeing with my opinion. I have fingerwagged against inappropriate behaviour. Neither have I said that any of your arguments on the issues, are any more wrong or right, due to said behaviour. The fact that it has been inappropriate behaviour, done exclusively by those I, as it happens, also disagree with, is wholly irrelevant. That I disagree with your opinions, is not an excuse for being allowed to make ad hominiem attacks against me (and baseless ones at that).

As to his hearing her... That has already been dealt with. The initial source did not verify that he could hear her, but the source mentioned here did. This I conceded, as soon as that source was mentioned, so I do not understand why you still go on about the issue.

The "in front of" issue may be one you consider pedantry, but... so what? Why would you condemn me, for simply wanting accuracy? Besides, there is a significant difference between "in front of" and "in the presence of". The degree of awareness/notice is clearly different. The different wording does give different images of events. The difference may be subtle, but it is significant. Also, it's just plain wrong and not verified by the sources.

As to what happened in actual reality... As I have already stated: I have not, ever (here, that is), made any arguments about what actually happened. Not once. If you claim that I have, please point me to anywhere, where I have. If you can't, then your claims are clearly utterly baseless. The fact that you didn't apologise for the accusation (or at the very least, just drop it), but rather have chosen to go on about it all the more, despite my statement that I have done nothing of the kind, is rather disturbing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going nowhere, so I'm going to make it moot by taking the compromise option and shortening the section. OldFishHouse (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm nominating this discussion for WP:HALLOFLAMECombatWombat42 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This? If this is really bad enough to be worthy of the Hall of Flame (and I seriously doubt it is. I've seen worse on here and I hadn't even heard of the hall of flame before ...and besides: This is the internet!), then that would mean that wikipedia is far more civilized than I thought.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Having taken a quick look at WP:HALLOFLAME... Ah, it's lame edit wars. That does make the nomination a lot more understandable.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Given the requirement on WP:HALLOFLAME, that there has to have actually been an edit war... This "incident" does not qualify.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Metao did go ahead and remove the phrase "in front of" without bothering to wait for a consensus. OldFishHouse (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I second the nomination. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision elevator section

The changes so far are a step in the right direction but these are some of the elements that I think should still be included. The "incident" arose in the context of her speaking at an atheist conference on the topic of women's under-representation and experiences in the skeptics and atheism blogs and conventions-this better establishes its relevance. Dawkins was seated beside her when she addressed the subject at the conference. ("The community" should be rephrased for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar who exactly is being referred to there.) And although Dawkins drew a lot of support/criticism for his comments on the incident, the resulting feud between them is of minor significance. (Dawkins has engaged in high profile spats with a lot of notable people.) What's notable about this incident is how it snowballed into a fierce debate about sexism and feminism in atheism/skepticism. ("a fairly useful debate ... descended into all out troll warfare and an attendant witch-hunt"). This and this may help us put the episode in a more noteworthy context. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest this as another possible source.Novangelis (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been nicely shortened, but...

There should be a mention of the fact that the man asked her for coffee and conversation in his room. Rebecca Watson and her supporters on this issue take that as a euphemism for sex (or to be close enough), while many of her critics find that to be an invalid conclusion.

Also the fact that she stated that the man's behaviour was him sexualizing her. A fact that she and her supporters find makes the act all the worse, given that she had done a talk about that exact thing at the event, whilst many of her critics, however, do not consider the man's behaviour as necessarily sexualizing and/or sexist, and consider the accusation to be a baseless one, based on nothing more than a irrationally negative view of men in general. (whilst other critics of Watson's either don't care if it is sexualizing or concede that it is, but in either case, consider it a level of sexualization that is necessary for any romantic relationships to form)

These two points are rather central to how/why this became such a controversy and adding it should not require making the section that much longer, anyway. Maybe 3-7 words longer at most, I'd think. Just to add the fact about the "coffee and conversation" and the accusation of "sexualization", that is. Not how the various parties view these aspects.

I'm not too sure the edits were made in a proper wikipedia manner, what with having to wait for consensus and all, but... I don't really mind the edits too much, and neither does anyone else it seems, so...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Central to how/why this became such a controversy"? Where did you read this? This wasn't even Dawkins' objection, and he's probably the most cited participant chiming in. There must have been hundreds of overwrought speculations and flamey accusations flying around. From, "how is a guy ever supposed to get laid then?" to "women do get raped by strangers accosting them in elevators". Another major contender for "became such a controversy" is that it seems to have unleashed the Hounds of TrollHell. So I say again, "central" says who? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins comment was merely a "side-event" in the whole elevatorgate issue. Yes, he is a notable person and the fact that such a big name got into the whole issue is notable, but still... It's a side-event. A notable side-event, but a side-event all the same.

People saying "how is a guy ever supposed to get laid then?" and "women do get raped by strangers accosting them in elevators" is more reflective of the actual bulk of the conversation. Those comments (and rape threats and people saying every man are potential rapists) are mainly reflective of the worst people of both sides (who, more or less, over-voice all comments that even approach being reasonable), admittedly, but that is still more or less the actual issue of elevatorgate. Also, the fact that the controversy was/is mostly a sordid flame war, is firmly verified by the sources.

As to "says who"... Well take a look at:

• The comment section of the original video.
• The comment section of any and all blogs/articles/videos on the issue ...or the articles/blogs/videos themselves.
• The comments in threads about this issue on major (or minor, for that matter) atheism/scepticism/feminism forums.

You may say that those are not reliable sources, but... they are the arena on which the conversation happened/happens. What source could be more reliable? The only problem would be getting an accurate sense of things, given the vast amount of comments. Still, those quotes you mentioned may not have been real accurate quotations of certain specific comments, but you didn't just make them up, out of nowhere. You know, from somewhere, that such comments have been made. Says who? That "somewhere".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well that's clearly WP:OR - a wikipedian interpretation based on "comments" such this is original research based on the use of comments as primary sources. Of course I didn't "make up" my examples and I wasn't implying you made up yours. These other examples are to illustrate this "central issue" question isn't self-evident at all -- many involved considered the infights over this inexplicable. That's why we'd need a RS that "say" what's central rather than are used like raw data for analysis on any of our parts. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess I have to, somewhat grudgingly, admit that you are quite correct. Thanks correcting me, there ...and I wasn't, in any way, accusing you of making up my examples, I was merely trying to point out that you had a source for those quotes. A source that isn't good enough for wikipedia, but...

I do, however, believe that there are reliable sources, that would confirm it though. I might try and find one, but... don't count on me actually doing it. Naturally, I won't be able to say it's the case until I do, but...

I would still say that the "coffee and conversation" and the accusation of "sexualization" stuff should be put back in. After all, I didn't really mean to mention, the point about that being more in line with what is central to the issue, as a reason to add them in, but rather to further strengthen the case for putting them in there.

Also, as it is written now, it gives a certain, skewed, view of the events. I would argue that it is rather POV, in it's current form. Add those two things back in, and the readers may make up their own minds.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain how you think it is "POV"? My concern is that if we put in argumentative details like the fact that the man suggested coffee-drinking, someone else will want to point out that coffee and conversation was freely available in the bar they had just left, someone else will fire back that he said the phrase "Don't take this the wrong way," and the battle will continue. The section shouldn't try to provide the reader with every detail they need to make up their own mind, because the cited sources will link them to never-ending discussion of the topic. The section should just briefly summarize the incident, then focus on the fallout from it, because that's really what's relevant in an encyclopedia entry on Rebecca Watson. OldFishHouse (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's POV because it heavily implies that he actually did ask for sex. Mind you, I do understand your fears of it going too far. If you mention one thing, people will want to mention another, and another and another, and it'll go too far, and probably involve a flame war or two ...but you have to mention something. How much is too much? How much is too little? That is indeed, a problematic issue.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not POV. Reliable third-party sources describe the event as "propositioned".[2][3][4] There is no serious doubt that sex was intended. Pushing OR interpretations to create doubt is POV editing, and past a reasonable point becomes disruptive.Novangelis (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no serious doubt that sex was intended? No doubt in the mind of Rebecca Watson, certainly. No doubt in the mind of the specific people who wrote those specific articles you link to, perhaps ...but no serious doubt? That is clearly untrue.

Your point about reliable sources describing the event as "propositioned", however, is fair enough. Thus I shall back down on this issue. At least until/unless I bother to find a contradicting reliable source.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources for this seem rather highly POV; but that doesn't mean the language of the article has to be. I cleaned it up to use more neutral language and to more correctly reflect the information given in the sources. Ironlion45 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I am less concerned with POV in this case and more concerned with WP:VAGUE issues here. I would say this it is not NPOV because that imagry evokes a specific response from people and is frankly unnessicary, except for people trying to make a point about the sites mentioned. As for VAGUE issues, I wrote those lines and was not particularly proud of them, the original phrasing implied that all internet users were using obscene imagry when in reality it (as the source admits) was a very small segment of the internet, to have that imagry in this article give voice to that very small minorty well out of weight with their actual voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Some commentators" in no way implies everyone on the internet. I'm not following this at all.Countered (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV on rape and death threats

The wording being discussed is the wording of "revealed that some that consider themselves members of the atheist and skeptic community use patriarchal arguments. Some commentators went so far as to use threats of rape, mutilation and murder". From the cited source: "Some men, meanwhile, ridiculed Watson as overly sensitive or worse — or threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder." Now, how is this not NPOV based on the source provided? Countered (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Look one line up CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And you'll see they're talking about a different source, and not just the specific language. There isn't "three people who agreed", there is one person who edited the page based on their own understanding of NPOV. From the source itself I've shown that there were "threats of rape, mutilation and murder". Listing that in the article because it was in the citation isn't against NPOV, unless I'm missing something. Countered (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironlion45 made the edit and made a comment about how the source is not neutral, it seems pretty clear that he was talking about the same thing you are, as for the "agreement" by 3 editors, Ironlion45, myself obviously support that language, Novangelis editied that language so presumably also agrees. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand how removing "threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder" makes it neutral, seeing as it's cited by the source. Are you disputing that there were threats?Countered (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See above discussion. It has to do with WP:WEIGHT To quote Jimbo Whales "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

But it is in the article cited? I'm still not following. Is the source not trustworthy?Countered (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

How is this unclear: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia" I can't make it any more clear. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows it was held by a very small minority? Does this somehow change the fact that there were in fact threats of rape and death? Are we no longer supposed to write articles about individuals? You're not making any sense. Countered (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Facts are not "a viewpoint". To be clear, I did not concur. I did not restore it immediately in order to mull it over. Replacing specific details with vague terms can be a false form of neutrality, and in this case, I believe it is such. I had restored it once before because I consider it a relevant detail, just as I left mutilation out because I felt it was extraneous: threats of sexual violence and murder seem to create an upper bound which is not augmented by threats of mutilation.Novangelis (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

All I see is a citation that says "threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder". I don't see anything about just mutilation, and I don't see how this isn't neutral. Countered (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The people that held "a viewpoint" are in a very small minority. Let me make an example: If I could find a source that said that people claimed that there were aliens living on the moon, that would be a fact by your definition( Fact: "people claim there are aliens living on the moon"), but it would be stupid to mention that on the article for [[[the moon]] as that viewpoint is held my an extremely small minority and therefore does not belong on wikipdia. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. What I don't understand it why this is comparable to that, as the fact that there were threats isn't removed, it's just been changed to "heated conversations". In fact it seems like that would actually be adding bias to the article, not the other way around. i.e. "some people think strange things about the moon". They think there are aliens, and if the article is talking about situations where people think wierd things about the moon, isn't it relevant to add that? In this situation is seem like an attempt to neutralize the language is actually biasing the article.Countered (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The main reason for not including that language about threats is that it reflects the actions of a very very tiny group of individuals, and possibly just the act of a single person. The inclusion of this information, in this context, creates the implicit suggestion that these actions were typical of the people who objected to Watson's statements. Including explicit mention of them, especially in such graphic wording, gives the fact that such threats were received inappropriate weight in the description of these events, where the role of hate mail/internet threats in this controversy was minimal, at best.

This appears to be the view of all people currently editing this article, save one; so I'm going to go ahead and assume there is a consensus regarding this. However, since I suspect that any edits made will simply be reverted by the dissenting editor regardless of any other consensus, I'll suggest an edit that uses language along the lines of "Threatening messages" or "Personal threats", which would hopefully be satisfactory to everyone editing this piece currently. Ironlion45 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of weight, I'm worried that the Elevatorgate section now has too much weight. I believe the content on the page should be stripped back, but keeping the full set of references. This is a page about Watson, not Elevatorgate; someone that wants to know more about Elevatorgate can go read the sources. Hopefully also by stripping it back we will avoid finicky edit wars over wording and details. The details shouldn't even be on this page. Thoughts? Metao (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)