Talk:Nasty Woman Movement

Reception: Celebrities such as Katy Perry, Will Ferrell, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus have all publicly worn a "Nasty Woman" t-shirt in support of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and writers for sites such as the Huffington Post have voiced their support for the Nasty Women Project and themselves claim themselves as "nasty women." Elizabeth Warren used the "nasty woman" quote as a call to vote against Trump on on election day. The reclaiming of the title "nasty woman" has been viewed in a mostly favorable way by the political left, while some right wing sources and groups take issue with the Women's March and "nasty women."

I have found a lot of articles about people responding to the the "nasty woman" comments on Twitter, but so far I haven't found very much about general support of the Nasty Woman Project. Brittabarre (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the Nasty Women project keeps a list of their interviews and article features on their website? I'll check on that and see what I can find. Willowwalsh (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC) I've been low-key classifying our sources on the bottom of the google doc, so we can get an idea, as a group, of which sources would be beneficial under which subheadings. *Subject to change* The good thing is that, with our existing sources, we have at least two sources for each subheading. As you can see (on the google doc), pop culture has way more sources, specifically art exhibition sources. I don't know if this would suggest that we should alter our current headings or just dig deeper to fill out the rest of the sections. Willowwalsh (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so, I found a source, The Washington Times, that found a name for the "movement." It actually called it the "'Nasty Women' moniker." I tried looking for sources that labeled it as the Nasty Woman Movement, but I only found a Facebook page with a mere 200 followers. I think using "moniker" would help us from distinguishing it as a movement which might stray into original research type problems. Also, I think the movement itself is really a stem of the women's movement and the resistance movement. "Nasty Woman" seems more like, as the Washington Times describes, a "barb... [that] has injected new vigor into Democrats' appeal to women to rally" (Wolfgang). Does this sound like a way we might want to look at the "movement?" Willowwalsh (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found a source (Scambler, Sasha. "The Rise of the Nasty Women – Reclaiming the Feminist Collective." Cost Of Living. Cost of Living, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 18 Apr. 2017) that calls the movement a movement.Willowwalsh (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My overview is kind of a skeleton, because I want to get an idea of the order of everything, so it seems like a logical flow from one topic to the next. If the way I order things is different from how it's ordered in the article, it probably will seem weaker, so I'll be adjusting it as we go on.Willowwalsh (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

small point: word consistency

Decide as a group the best term, based on popular use, for Nasty Woman or Nasty Women. There's some inconsistency across your sections. If you see others using both, you should use the term of their choice when directly discussing them, but on the page, when it's your language/description, choose a consistent phrase. I would recommend describing this decision, or even having the conversation on the Talk Page, so that future editors who come along will be able to practice your protocol. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, capitalizing Movement makes it function as a proper noun, but I thought you told me in Monday's class it was a term you had made up. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you mean by "democratic women" in the first section? If you're trying to refer to Democrats as a political party, it should be capitalized. But are all women embracing the term Democrats?Aschuet1 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Summary

Here is a list of things to consider (taken from the peer reviews):

adding pictures (what does the shirt look like? the book?)
what are the "works" in the book? Are they short stories?
take out the "Overview" label
watch out for contradictory info from section to section (not sure what this meant; maybe it's the woman vs. women)
use less Huffington Post sources/ use more from other sources to balance it out
woman vs. women
inconsistency in capitalizing "Nasty Woman" vs. "nasty woman"
the overview should go more in-depth
reword in first line in the overview (that's my bad, I need to work on my effective summarizing skills)Willowwalsh (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
some sections seem lacking/ not filled out enough
sources 12 and 19 were a problem in some way
the pop culture section is a reiteration of the partnerships section (Is it because we mentioned the book twice?)
more context is needed (this could apply to the overview and origin people)
being mindful of our tone (they didn't give specific examples)
what was the overall reception like? What was on the NastyWoman hashtag?
when was the Nasty Woman book written?

Again, this is just summarized list of what the peer reviews had to say.
Willowwalsh (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]