Talk:MeToo movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tarana Burke's claims of starting the "Me Too" slogan should be removed and updated.

Although Burke claims that she created the "Me too" slogan which she claims references other victims of sexual harassment, Ms. Burke's representations are inaccurate. Instead, the "Me too" phrase has been used for decades by dozens, if not hundreds, of state and federal courts to refer to testimony of other individuals who experienced similar treatment by the defendant and which could corroborate a plaintiff's claims of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation -- often, although not always, in the employment context. (See United States Postal Serv. Bd. v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 (1983); Roberts v. Air Capitol Plating, Inc., 1997 WL 446266 (D. Kan. 1997); Reed v. National Linen Service, 182 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 1999); Kunzman v. Enron Corp., 941 F.Supp. 853 (N.D. Iowa 1996); Pennington v. Clayton Industries, 2002 WL 34357428 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). Moreover, this term has never been limited to harassment based on sex, as Ms. Burke claims, but instead, has been used to refer to harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation based on all forms of protected characteristics including, among others, disability, age, sexual orientation, and religion. (See Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1479 (9th Cir. 1995); Reed v. Kansas City Missouri School District, 504 S.W.3d 235 (2016); United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children's Found. of Los Angeles & Ventura Counties, 173 Cal.App.4th 740, 765 (2009)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.39.222 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's listed here because this article is about the movement #MeToo, which went viral after Milano's tweet. Milano has credited the movement to Tarana Burke, and they both have become the biggest faces of the movement. The article isn't about the phrase "Me Too" in general. Plantlady223 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

False rape allegations percentages

I propose removing this:

in part due to published research about false rape accusations ranging from 8% to 41%, instead of an unsubstantiated number of 2%.

I went to the page: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/18/beware_the_rape_allegation_bandwagon_135291.html

It cites the same book that's listed as the second reference: "False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports of Crime." So both sources are actually the same source.

It lists the numbers "8% to 41%". So I went to the book and searched for those numbers: https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZArDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA201&vq=41&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q=8%25%2041%25&f=false

Those are on page 200, just like the citation for the book. Let me go one by one to verify the information, it may take me a few days to go through all of them but I will do them all. So far, not a single study actually supports what the books said, and at least one is a completely fake article that never existed.

It lists the following sources for those numbers:

1. MacDonald (1973) - Article doesn't exist. 18% nationwide and 25% in Denver, Colorado No evidence I can find that this article exists. No "Macdonald" published a study in that issue for the listed pages (a MacDonald did contribute to an editorial about castrating rapists on page 14, but that isn't a study and had nothing to do with false rape allegations.
2. Greenfield (1997) - Article doesn't support the listed facts. US Bureau of Justice Statistics - 8% in 1995 and 15% in 1997 Here's a link to the report: https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF If you search for "false" or "8%" or "15%" or "1995" or "1997" there is nothing about "false report rapes". There is one stat, 8% "unfounded" claims of forcible rapes in 1995, which were not determined to be false, but were instead excluded from crime reports. The 15% number is completely made up, and the report was made in 1997 so logically it wouldn't have the 1997 stats anyway
3. Brown, Crowley, Peck, and Slaughter (1997) - Article doesn't support the listed facts. 13% at San Louis Obispo General Hospital Emergency room in California between 1985-1993 I was able to get access to the full article in my library. The whole study is only 266 words long and it says nothing about false allegations. It seriously only talks about the amount of physical trauma that is associated with forcible rape, and never mentions the 13% figure http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(97)70556-8/fulltext
4. Note from author Savino, who claims to be a retired senior detective of NYPD Manhatten special victim squad (MSVS). He said it was as high as 40% (no dates or methods listed). The 40% number is based purely on the author's personal perception as a retired detective, with no reference to facts or statistics.
5. Dunleavy (1999) - Editorial quotes District Attorney Linda Fairstein of Manhatten. 4000 rapes each year, half didn't happen (50%)
6. (Fazlollah & McCoy (2000) In a 2000 article"Of 2000 uninvestigated cases in Philadelphia, from 1995-1997, there were 600 false reports or allegations that did not amount to crimes, so the estimate is 25-50%
7. Kanin (1994) - 41% in unnamed Manhatten city
8. Kennedy and Witkowski (2000) - 32% in Detroit between 1988 and 1997
9. Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate April 2002 report - "A Report on the Joint Inspection into the Investigation and Prosecution of Cases Involving Allegations of Rape" 11.8% false reports
10. Lea, Lanvers, and Shaw (2003) - southwest England from 1996-2000 - 11%
11. Jordan (2004) - New Zealand 41%
12. Lonsway, Archambault, and Lisak (2009) 7.1%
13. Lisak, Gardinier, Nicksa, and Cote (2010) in Bosnia from 1998 to 2007. 5.9%

I have removed the book as a reference as it doesn't say MeToo independently and is only linked via the article. The other things will be discussed soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

With regards to MacDonald how do you know it doesn't exist? As shown here https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=8GtQAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=MacDonald John MacDonald did write in that issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll notice that "MacDonald" only contributes to an editorial on page 14, and isn't part of any study. The citation is for pages 170-194. I can't find any evidence that "False accusations of rape." by John M. MacDonald exists. Plantlady223 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The source you have provided is NCJ-163931 from January but the book cites NCJ-163392 of February. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the NCJ-163392 version (listed on page 2), the 15% number is not anywhere in there, and it doesn't report any numbers for 1997: https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF Plantlady223 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing it could be the bit that says All injury was resolved (no evidence of previous trauma) by the reappointment examination in 71 (87%). as 100 - 13 = 87. However I am not sure what exactly you are doing here. If a reliable source says something then we write based on that, we don't engage in WP:OR. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"All injury was resolved" by the second appointment doesn't have anything to do with whether the rape allegation was false. I just thought that the point of Wikipedia is to make sure the facts are presented truthfully, and I thought if a source was completely disproven that would be enough to keep it off Wikipedia. What do you think about what Volunteer Marek said about Malkin's blog being an unreliable source in the first place? Plantlady223 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

What Volunteer Marek has said is correct and it should not be included for that reason. When you removed it you only explained in the edit summary about the book, so I thought you might not have looked at the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

An op-ed by Michelle Malkin is not a reliable source for any claims of fact. Using the book itself would be WP:SYNTHESIS. What you need is a secondary source that is reliable (i.e. not Malkin) that makes the connection between report rates and MeToo explicitly (i.e. it's not original research).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Underwear photo

I've removed File:MeTooKnickersAdvocacy.jpg from the top of the article. It was uploaded and added to the top of the article by Kencf0618 (talk · contribs), who also added a bunch of non-breaking spaces in the middle of the article for no apparent reason; then removed by DynaGirl (talk · contribs) with the edit summary that said it doesn't have any evidence of being representative; then re-added by Kencf0618 with the edit summary "And it is one anonymous woman's advocacy, and as such is illustrative." But I have removed it again. It violates MOS:LEADIMAGE. And regardless of where the image might be put, it doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment: There is no evidence that this unusual placement of the phrase "me too" is illustrative of how the phrase is normally used, and it gives the misleading impression that this is the common placement. --Closeapple (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That'll work. kencf0618 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Trond Giske, the deputy leader of the Norwegian Labour Party and a former cabinet minister in Norway, resigned from his political positions on 7 January 2018 after being accused of an extensive pattern of sexual harassment of young women, and of taking advantage of his political positions to make unwanted sexual advances.[123] The accusations came in the context of the Me Too debate and dominated Norwegian media for several weeks from December 2017.[124] Yonas9864 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Cathrine Deneuve's involvement and letters

'It is claimed the letter is poorly edited with several typos and unclear or clumsy passages.[116][117].'

This is not correct. The full letter can be found here on this site http://www.lemonde.fr/ The letter has no typos, is clear and well written.

'The people who signed the letter, especially Deneuve and Millet, were criticized for saying men should have the "right to pester" women.'

Again, at no time does the letter state this.

'The letter also told people not to be bothered by small amounts of sexual harassment, for example men who masturbate on public transportation by rubbing their genitals on unwilling women.'

The letter does not state anywhere that it is acceptable to do this, it states 'if a man should rub against you'.

'A week after it's publication, Deneuve publicly denounced the letter, saying although she signed her name she wants to clarify she does not condone sexual violence or harassment.'

Deneuve never denounced the letter http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2018/01/14/catherine-deneuve-rien-dans-le-texte-ne-pretend-que-le-harcelement-a-du-bon-sans-quoi-je-ne-l-aurais_1622399 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justthefactsman1 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose re: passage about typos. Source (which is actually supporting the letter) says: "The letter was also strikingly badly edited, with clumsy chunks unworthy of their authors."

Oppose re: "Right to pester" is what's reported in the U.S. and U.K. news, as stated in the reference and others. What is the original French phrase and what alternative translations do you propose?

Oppose re: the word "denounce" it is in the headline. What do you think it should be changed to?

Oppose re: men masturbating on public transportation. The source says this: "In a line that drew particular outrage, the letter encouraged women “not to feel forever traumatized” by what the writers dismissed as relatively minor forms of sexual harassment. They cited, as an example, men who masturbate by rubbing themselves against women on buses or subways. They said women could “consider it as the expression of a great sexual misery, or even as a nonevent.” I don't see how that's incompatible with what's in the article: "The letter also told people not to be bothered by small amounts of sexual harassment, for example men who masturbate on public transportation by rubbing their genitals on unwilling women." What do you propose changing the sentence to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantlady223 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad editing is not the same as typos.

We should not do our translations but follow the reliable sources.

Content should be put in our words and not plagiarized.

Excessive details about one random letter may not be appropriate for an article about MeToo.

Also you two remember to sign your comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's change it to "bad editing"

Agreed, we should keep it as what the sources said

Maybe "A week after its publication, Deneuve issued a letter of clarification, and said although she still agrees with the spirit of the original letter, she wants to clarify she does believes sexual harassment and assault are real problems, and apologized to all victims of unpleasant sexual acts who read the letter and felt hurt by it."

Yes, but it's not a random letter. If you look at the coverage, this letter is widely covered and discussed in hundreds if not thousands of articles, not just in France but in #MeToo coverage around the world. I think it's definitely appropriate to include in the #MeToo article. In fact, it's covered so widely I almost wonder if the letter should get its own section.

Sorry about that :) Plantlady223 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Me Too (hashtag). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171107022048/http://cars.tampabay.com/news/perspective/the-celebrities-who-have-said-metoo-about-sexual-assault-and-harassment/2341702 to http://cars.tampabay.com/news/perspective/the-celebrities-who-have-said-metoo-about-sexual-assault-and-harassment/2341702

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Too much for individual writers in unbalanced Criticism section

There's much in the Criticism section that are given WP:UNDUE weight because they are whole paragraphs by individuals, essentially writing their article out for them?

1. Sady Doyle, 228 words
2. Jennifer Wright, 183 words
3. Jessica Valenti, 192 words
4. Ronan Farrow, 205 words
5. Burke in the overcorrection section, 208 words.

All these examples are not even criticism but defense against criticism. You can rename Criticism to Defense of criticism while you're at it. In my opinion, the criticism section spends 472 words actually criticizing (22%), 1486 words defending the movement (69%), and 197 words I couldn't classify as either way (9%). starship.paint ~ KO 11:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This was very much the case, and part of my reason for shortening a lot of the paragraphs yesterday. Some of the international section follows this pattern too and I haven't gotten around to editing that yet. Connor Behan (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. That is the problem when Wikipedia is edited with the purpose of spreading a world view instead of facts.--APS^talk 12:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anybody help clarify previous edits that have led to continuity problems with paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 in Overcorrection part of Criticism section? Specifically: Paragraph 6 has a quote from a male person (Michael something);

Paragraph 7 starts with "she says...", which seems to refer to Kasia Urbaniak (who's mentioned in paragraph 8 only by her last name, even though she's first mentioned several sections and paragraphs before).

My guess is either: a) paragraph 6 was inserted without regard to its placement and where it logically should be, and/or: b) paragraphs 7 and 8 were moved from different section above without considering how breaking up quotes and moving passages to much later in entry would affect how confusing/jarring this is to readers.

Confused? #MeToo! Can anyone please help sort this out? Thanks!

MeToo and BLP policy

Wikipedia articles on the MeToo movement presents particular concerns regarding compliance with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Because these articles deal with accusations against people of a serious nature (Sexual assault and rape, for example) that would constitute defamation, we need to be very careful how we include such allegations, something I have already seen compliance problems with. Let me remind editors of steps you need to take when deciding how to include MeToo related sexual misconduct allegations:

• The allegation must be one covered by major reliable news sources.
• If the allegation is at this time just an unproven allegation and not yet either proven in court of law (i.e. the accused was convicted), confessed too by the accused, or generally accepted as proven despite the accused never having been tried for the crime, then we should make clear. We can refer to them as being alleged to have done X. For acts a sexual harassment or other types of sexual; misconduct that typically do no result in a criminal charge, and which also do not result in a civil lawsuit, we should refrain from referring to the allegations as if they are proven unless the accused has confessed. We can talk about what if anything their employer (if applicable) did in response to the allegations such as firing them or mention a financial settlement paid the alleged victim (if applicable). But keep in mind that being fired by one's employee or paying settlement do not constitute proof of the allegation and thus it could still be defamatory to claim the allegation true based on those facts alone.
• When discussing what an accuser says about an alleged (i.e. unproven) perpetrator, make sure you phrase their statements to be clear it's an unproven allegations at this time such as by including "allegedly" before the act alleged, just as News ordinations do. The same rule applies to third party comments about allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse.
• When quoting accusers and others who believe the accusers, be careful not to imply that accuser's allegation have been proven or that the allegation is generally accepted as true when it has not been (at least yet). For example, the article previously mentioned "(Ronan) Farrow called for a careful examination of each story to guard against false accusations but also recalled the sexual abuse his sister Dylan Farrow went through at the hands of his father Woody Allen.". I modified because the wording "recalled the sexual abuse his sister Dylan Farrow went through at the hands of his father Woody Allen" seems to state the accusation against Woody Allen as having been proven, when in fact it never has been either in a court of law or in the eyes of the general public. Yes, a good number of people believe her accusation to be true but many others either do not the accusation to be true or simply believe that accusation to neither proven nor disproved at this time. Thus we should be clear in this case that it's currently just an allegation without a criminal or civil court conviction, or a clear consensus by the general public. We could include a statement in parentheses that states this third party believes the accuser such as, for example, "Bob recalled the allegation of rape by doctor X (which he believes to be true)...".

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove paragraph about Gender studies scholar Eva Lundgren

Qwertenius (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC) I propose removing the paragraph about comments from Swedish Gender studies scholar Eva Lundgren. This is undue weight to the own research and opinions of an individual on a related topic. Two citations are given, but subscriber access is required to follow them. I can see that the cited articles are not news or editorials, but debate articles, and one of them is written by Lundgren herself. Any objections?

Overabudance of quotes from random people in criticism section

We absolutely do not need to quote every single opinion piece that criticises this. I'm going to be cutting down on the amount of quotes in the criticism section, mostly by outright removing stuff sourced to opinion pieces by people who don't have a notable opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Similar discussion at #Too much for individual writers in unbalanced Criticism section. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Why only Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Judd, Jennifer Lawrence, and Uma Thurman in intro?

The article should include more of the notable figures who initially responded to #MeToo with a lot of press coverage in the intro. For example Björk, Sheryl Crow, Viola Davis, Rosario Dawson, Ellen DeGeneres, Lady Gaga, Molly Ringwald, Reese Witherspoon, Angelina Jolie, Terry Crews, etc. A huge aspect of the MeToo movement is the sheer number of familiar figures who responded with their own stories. It's so odd the article only includes 5 examples in the header, and not even the ones that received the most press coverage. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. The lead is not meant to be a list of examples, we have that in Me Too movement#Reach and impact where even that it might be questionable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Misleading/Incorrect Statistics in the Changes to K-12 Section

Apologies in advance, I've never meaningfully edited a wiki article before or participated in a talk page.

There are a couple of sentences citing ref# 53 that are misleading.

Original Sentence

A 2011 survey found 40% of boys and 56% of girls in grades 7–12 reported had experienced some type of sexual harassment in their lives.[53][55]

Suggested Edit

A 2011 survey found 40% of boys and 56% of girls in grades 7–12 reported had experienced some type of negative sexual comment or sexual harassment in their lives.[53][55]

Reason

The cited articles source study defines sexual harassment to include harassing and bullying behaviors that are not commonly considered to be included by the phrase sexual harassment. (Examples: Being called Gay in a derogatory manner, Having a rumor of your sexuality spread that negatively affects you, Being emailed an unwelcome link to a porn site) This section of the article is wildly misleading (and fear mongering) if the reader is left to assume that roughly 50% of all children are victims of the more commonly imagined concept of sexual harassment as a threatening physical behavior.

Original Sentence

In 2016, a national U.S. survey of girls aged 14–18 found that 1 in 5 had been touched or kissed without consent and nearly 1 in 16 had been forced to have sex against their will.[53]

Suggested Edit

Remove the sentence

Reason

Statistics are not contained in the cited article or its source study, neither of which is a 2016 national U.S. survey. Appears to be a made up stat or possibly an incorrect reference. My quick Google search couldn't locate a study that matches the quoted data.

Edit: Signed this section and made proposed edits to the article.

--NiceNix (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The second edit is definitely good. The first one, I'm not sure about. Being sent porn links would definitely come under sexual harassment by my definition. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: The first edit is definitely a touchy subject to deal with. It seems to be generally acknowledged (including on the wiki page for Sexual Harassment in the Criticism section) that the term is fuzzy in definition and varies by culture. The only reason I can think of to exclude the added specificity is that it may suggest that negative sexual comments and sexual harassment are separate things when it should be obvious that they are the same thing. But I don't think that "it should be obvious" applies to a topic as loosely defined as this one. Perhaps the phrasing "... sexual harassment, which includes negative sexual comments and unwanted sexual contact, ..." would work better? I'm definitely open to suggestions. My concern here is only to reduce the potential hyperbole.--NiceNix (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Adams / Jeordie White scandal should be removed from the summary

This is the last sentence of the summary, which otherwise includes seminal moments in the #MeToo movement and famous accusers. Neither Adams nor White are of the same level of celebrity, and that scandal is not as known as the others. Being the first in the music sphere doesn't warrant such emphasis; this should be moved to a subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxGhenis (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

Please add next following statements to the South Korea section at the end. I think it is important to explain Korean MeToo movement because School_MeToo movement is noticeable change of Korea MeToo movement.

The MeToo movement is being expanded to the general public. On social networks, such as Korean facebook, a SchooL_MeToo page was published for minor students of Korea who suffer or suffered sexual harassment or assault. It shows the MeToo movements is expanding to education area of elementary, middle, and high school. And steady accusations of students are being published on this page. BoeunKim (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The reliable source status of the second source is unclear and the first is just a bunch of Facebook posts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Possible Article Contributions

The workplace was talked about frequently throughout the article, I plan to include a section about how the movement #MeToo is used in the workplace. These are the two sources I plan to use in that section.

1.CHRISTIAN, MARGENA A. "Having Our Say." Ebony, vol. 73, no. 5, Mar. 2018, pp. 72-75. EBSCOhost, 199.245.164.25:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=128084653&site=ehost-live&scope=site.Beeson,

2. FONDA, JANE, et al. "After #Metoo." Nation, vol. 306, no. 1, 1/1/2018, pp. 22-25. EBSCOhost, 199.245.164.25:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=126880016&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Megan warren613 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible Article Ideas

I plan to add information and stories of those sexually assaulted and harassed in the workplace.

Sources: 1. CHRISTIAN, MARGENA A. "Having Our Say." Ebony, vol. 73, no. 5, Mar. 2018, pp. 72-75. EBSCOhost, 199.245.164.25:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=128084653&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

2. Phifer, Kenneth W., et al. "#Metoo Stories . .." Christian Century, vol. 135, no. 3, 31 Jan. 2018, p. 6. EBSCOhost, 199.245.164.25:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=127282878&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Baileyryane (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Noting that the Korean translation is off.

The literal Korean translation is "I also suffered." Na- Me/I. Do- too/also. 당하다- danghada--to suffer, danghaetda 당했다, past form of "당하다" Literal Me too, in Korea would be "나도", but since Korean is a SOV language, it requires a verb. Is there a way to clarify what the Korean says v. the english-used hashtag? (Also for other languages on the list where it applies?)--KimYunmi (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Addition of a new section on Race in context to the movement

I am adding a section to the #MeToo wikipedia page on the role of race in not only the experience of sexual harassment, but also some historical considerations of women of color whose work contributed to a society in which movement like #MeToo can occur. Additionally, sexual harassment should be considered intersectionality, thus the inclusion of more social identities and their role in sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement is important. I hope that additional identity consideration will be added to the page to help historicize and contextualize the movement and the issue of sexual harassment as a whole. Rbrantley 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Rbrantley 17:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I love the idea of documenting how Race relates to #MeToo. The sections you added are interesting but still need some work showing how they're directly related to #MeToo. Citing articles that talk about the topics in the context of #MeToo will add a lot! I moved the whole section on Race to the bottom of the article for now so you can work on it without it being as visible. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or suggestions! Lonehexagon (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is to leave a feedback on my classmate's work,

I was going through the edits that you made on this article and I saw that you kept writing social activist with caps lock. I'm quite sure that this is not supposed to be with caps. I think there are other editors out there that agrees with me as they have edited it without caps. But kudos on your book citation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernandez.Randy (talk • contribs) 08:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

List of local alternative hashtags

What should we do about this section? Per WP:NOTDICT, we shouldn't be translating the common usage phrase "me too" into different languages. I propose that we only say which countries a hashtag has been used in, if it is supported by a reliable source. Then we can compress the section into a single sentence or a short paragraph, because the article is very long. Of course, if a country is discussed at length, the hashtag translation can be mentioned. wumbolo ^^^ 23:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I support this, but I suspect that they have been used in sources but they have just no been referenced. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Improving the lead of the Me Too movement article

There has been some disagreement about what should be included in the WP:LEAD ("lede" or first few paragraphs of the article). WP:LEAD says, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" and "should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." Additionally, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I think the current lede does not adequately summarize all the most important points in the article.

Here is a new proposed lead. I'm curious what others think should be included or taken out.

The Me Too movement (or the hashtag "#MeToo", with local alternatives in other languages) is a worldwide movement against sexual harassment and assault, especially in the workplace. In 2006, activist Tarana Burke created the phrase “Me Too” on Myspace to support and empower women of color in a grassroots movement against sexual abuse. In October 2017, not long after the public learned of sexual abuse allegations against filmmaker Harvey Weinstein, actress Alyssa Milano encouraged women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to post "Me Too" to bring awareness to the magnitude of the problem. The phrase and hashtag #MeToo went viral on social media, and within one day the phrase had been used over half a million times on Twitter and more than 12 million times on Facebook, with Facebook reporting that nearly half of its U.S. users had a friend who had used the term. Several celebrities and high-profile participants, including men, shared their own stories of sexual harassment and assault. Within a month, the hashtag, or its local equivalent, had been used in around 85 countries.

The discussion prompted wide discussion on the need for change in workplace environments and cultural norms toward sexual harassment, including school education and industries as diverse as the church, financial industry, government, law enforcement, media, the military, and sports, among others. In the US, Jackie Speier introduced a bill to expedite processing of complaints in the legislative branch, including amendments to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to increase transparency and eliminate the use of public funds to pay for settlements.

Several high-profile men including politicians, media representatives and actors in several countries resigned after abuses came to light, but the movement has drawn criticism. Some journalists have indicated that over-publication could lead to public indifference, while others cautioned against false accusations. Burke, the original founder, stressed that the goal should be to update sexual harassment and abuse policies rather than to focus attention on perpetrators. Criticism also acknowledged the lack of recognition of black women and the barriers they face in the judicial system, as well as those who work in low-paid industries where harassment is common, like domestic workers, food service and retail workers, or are engaged as sex workers or are undocumented.

@Emir of Wikipedia, DanielLongbridge, Seaweed Llama, Riley Brantley, Laurenabb, Bensin, Chopps2018, and CherryPie94: I wanted get a good discussion about the lede, so I'm tagging editors who have contributed significantly to this page. I only went back about a month, so if I missed any other significant editors, please tag them! Lonehexagon (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@DanielLongbridge, Seaweed Llama, Riley Brantley, Laurenabb, Bensin, and CherryPie94: I'm pinging them as for some reason the ping doesn't appear to work. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: I would like to extend a huge thank you to SusunW, who has much more experience with ledes than me, and took the time to read the article and pretty much write this whole thing. I also want to thank Megalibrarygirl for helping me find Susun and further improve the lede. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem Lonehexagon One of the things I have learned is that a lede can make or break an article. Megalibrarygirl and I collaborate a lot. If you need anything any time, ping me and I'll give it my best shot ;) SusunW (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think should be changed, added or removed?

• Example comment

Lack of reliability?

This article has been tagged for having unreliable sources by Emir of Wikipedia. Does Emir or anyone have examples? I'd like to remove any bad sources and get rid of the tag. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently reference 74 has been separately tagged for reliability. Take a look through the reference list for if any more sources are unreliable. At the time of writing there is 374. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposed

I propose that the article be split per WP:SIZESPLIT. Which sections should be spinned-off? wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• International response, especially, and criticism should be turned into other articles. And the criticism part definitely needs to be copy written because it looks like a terrible college essay.Trillfendi (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I, too, was thinking the international response and criticism sections, but I can't recall WP preferences regarding "Criticism of ...[fill in blank]..." articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Another Believer: Per WP:POVFORK, There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Another option is article for specific nations, such as Me Too movement in France, Me Too movement in India, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think after the copyediting, if the article shortens or becomes more to the point, I would strengthen my opposition to split this page. I think copyediting this article would be better and we can take it from there. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: There are longer articles on Wikipedia than the Me Too movement but if this page gets bigger, then I can suggest only the International Response section (but I don't know how it's going to work) can be split, the other sections aren't that big to me. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• splitting of the article should definitely be carried out. also plz add extra info on the topic. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.223.234.205 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: But I think a Me Too movement worldwide article for the "International response" section to be moved into could work. I don't think there's enough for Me Too movement in foo country for some of the countries. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agreed international section could be its own article, but this page should get copy edited first no matter what the ultimate decision is. Shushugah (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

South Korea

Hi, Just to note I've moved South Korea to above Spain - I assume these are supposed to be in alphabetical order ?, If not ping me and I'll self rv, Only noting incase on the offchance I'm wrong, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

massage his genital area.

Does this mean "masturbate"? We shouldn't be stymied by either cultural embarrassment or the English of non-native speakers.

Nuttyskin (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent additions

Roman J. Lane, Esquire has repeatedly added this text to the article and been reverted. It is clearly not neutral and should stay gone.

The word "propagandist" does not appear in any of the sources that sentence is cited to.

The text "As it relates to the original purpose, or political aims, of "Me Too" as used by Tarana Burke in 2006 was to empower women and girls through empathy, especially young female victims of sexual harassment and assault who she feels voices are not heard. However, these victims have many resources at their disposal especially those enrolled in an American K-12 school as well as in American colleges and universities through the federal equity law amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title IX as well as numerous local woman's centers on a national to international scale." is cited only to The Women's Center, which I assume is supposed to be an example of women's centers but does not support the rest of the sentence or mention Me Too. This "However [...]" combination is not in the source and therefore is original research.

"With respect to its purpose, it hasn't actually changed traditional procedures such as due process in courts of law, and its effect corporate, or school, policies have been dubious. This movement has come to mean different things to different people as well as potentially creating a culture where due process for the accused may be undermined or less valued." It is not objective to call it "dubious" or speculate about its "[potential]" effects.

I could go through the rest of it, but it appears to be all like this. (I have no involvement with this article -- just noticed the issue and thought I'd add my two cents. Not sure this is on the right page, oh well.) ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 01:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Leading MeToo Figure Asia Argento Is Accused of Sexual Assault

I feel this should be included in the article.[1] Argento was even one of Weinstein's lead accusers.[2] 2601:447:4101:41F9:340B:3575:9EC:2B68 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Billie Piper

I think Billie Piper may have been misquoted in this article. The article says: "Actress Billie Piper said #MeToo on social media does not feel like feminism to her.[283]"

The source says:

However, Piper also revealed that she’s not necessarily a fan of the ‘MeToo’ movement on social media.

“Let’s say I know a lot of headstrong actors and actresses wanting to get something who wouldn’t say they’re victims of this,” said Piper.

She added that she thinks women should find other ways to show their ‘sisterhood’ rather than being ‘judgy and competitive’ online, and share less ‘over sexed’ photos.

“That doesn’t feel like feminism to me,” she said. “Like, this whole thing of “I’m liberated enough to bare my arse” doesn’t remotely cut it with me.”

“The emotions are the same, it’s just the semantics that have changed.”

https://www.nme.com/news/music/billie-piper-says-oversexualised-sanctioned-pimping-early-career-2236773

Is Piper really referring to the Me Too Movement or just to women sharing sexy photos on social media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:698:D300:CD45:6C69:E5DA:9B8F (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ""I'm liberated enough to bare my arse" doesn’t remotely cut it with me." makes it clear to me that she's referring to the "over sexed photos". I've removed the statement. The article does say she isn't "necessarily a fan" of the movement, so something to convey that can be added. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2018

Please remove "feminist activist Caroline De Haas" from the 3.8 France section since Ms De Haas didn't sign the mentionned open letter (she was firmly opposed to it : https://www.france24.com/fr/20180110-metoo-france-tribune-dehaas-reponse-deneuve-feminisme-harcelement) Eultonio (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done The reference already in the article also showed that Caroline De Haas was opposed to the letter, so I'm guessing she was added to the wrong paragraph as a mistake. I removed her name from the article; if you or another editor would like to summarize her position to be added to the France section, you can post another edit request with the proposed changes. Random character sequence (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Western Hemisphere Equal Rights and Charter of Rights and Freedom in Me Too Movement. This is not a Witch hunt.

In Western Hemisphere has the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Equal Rights is a part of the Charter of Rights and Freedom and is a part of Equal Rights for humans in the Western Hemisphere. Me Too Movement falls under Equal Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.248.95 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Weaponization of the movement

How about a new section to document the weaponising of the #MeToo movement? An example could include: using it for an anti-Kavanaugh mob during his Supreme Court confirmation. There is much media coverage of lots of examples. Just need to find the RS's out there.. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think no. There aren't many sources mentioning the Me Too movement in the context of Kavanaugh. Every massive movement will contain questionable actions by some of its members. Unless they are explicitly referred to in the context of discussing the movement, they aren't all that significant. wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

As time goes by there may be more instances. I hear reports of mother's concern for their son's. A Supreme Court Justice position is significant. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• In October 2018, Laurie Kellman of The Associated Press reported, Brett Kavanaugh’s display of both "fury and tears" during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing was a "cry for help, from the flip side of the #MeToo movement, which one year ago, began toppling powerful men from the pinnacle of their professions." https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/09/28/the-moment-kavanaugh-fury-and-tears-show-metoo-flip-side ~ Bought the farm (talk) 02:15, 7 October 22018 (UTC)
• Inside the Beltway - "#MeToo has been weaponized." #MeToo has quickly devolved into terrorism. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/23/inside-the-beltway-metoo-has-been-weaponized/ ~ Bought the farm (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Ingraham: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand "Fully Weaponized #MeToo" to Drive Anti-Trump Vote. Per Laura Ingram, "Gillibrand has fully weaponized the #MeToo hashtag movement... with the intention of driving the female vote in the midterms, and ultimately sweeping herself into the Oval Office [in 2020]." http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/12/ingraham-kirsten-gillibrand-rips-trump-weaponizing-metoo-movement-2018-2020-elections ~ Bought the farm (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hirono is "trying to weaponize #MeToo." Senator Mazie Hirono indicated to CNN that Brett Kavanaugh does not deserve to be presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/mazie-hirono-on-brett-kavanaugh-threatens-metoo-se-cupp/index.html ~ Bought the farm (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Al Franken’s Resignation and the Selective Force of #MeToo The force of the #MeToo moment leaves no room for due process. Reportedly, the force that ended his political career is greater than the truth, and this force operates on only roughly half of this country’s population — those who voted for Hillary Clinton and who daily consume what is referred to as the mainstream media. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/al-franken-resignation-and-the-selective-force-of-metoo ~ Bought the farm (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hidden dissuasion

This page's source code begins:

The Me Too movement (or #MeToo movement), with many local and international alternatives, is a movement against<!--For the sake of professionalism and complying with Wikipedia guidelines, please refrain from using the word "rape" in this article when this political movement is strictly about workplace sexual harassment in a non-legal context with propagandist aims. ~ Roman J. Lane, Esquire-->

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.23.220 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I've removed that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Google walkouts

I just started this page: 2018 Google walkouts I believe there is a relation between the two articles? Victor Grigas (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The stocks fell only very slightly. We can't be WP:CRYSTAL-ing such an event with no foreseeable consequences. Best to have a 1-sentence mention in History of Google. wumbolo ^^^ 21:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, come on, this is not insignificant. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's what Enough! National School Walkout said. Did the actual walkout have any actual consequences? wumbolo ^^^ 21:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that, so I'll just thank Victorgrigas for creating the new stub. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

HimToo

I added a brief section on the related Him Too movement, which initially shared a similar purpose and usage with #MeToo, but has evolved to a somewhat anti-MeToo, now largely associated with male victims of false accusations. While HimToo has its own (recently created) article, I'm not sure if it warrants one. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Furthermore, if the #HeToo movement is to be included in this article, there should be more detail provided on how exactly this movement is tied to the #MeToo movement. More detail should be provided of examples where the #HeToo Movement has come up and an explanation of whether this is indeed an actual movement. Sboyella (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential Edits

It looks like many sources are from blogs and posts from unreliable website, and news articles. --H.G. 05:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Guan (talk • contribs)

And a lot of that contributes to the article's bias. Per WP:CSECTION, the criticism section should be selectively merged to the purpose and effects sections. wumbolo ^^^ 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

I would expand on some of the countries that have very little in their category, I would also propose to add a section on the movements that the Me Too movement has inspired, and potentially looking to add a section on public figures that have been accused in the name of the Me Too movement  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deena.husami (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 

Under the "Impact" section, I would propose to change the name of sub-section from "church" to "religion" so we can include more religious related events. --H.G. 04:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to expand the section of Actress Alyssa Milano and her recent twitter thread is added into MeToo as she has prompted many individuals to speak up and share their personal experiences of sexual assault. The twitter thread has then become increasingly popular, allowing the public to understand the seriousness of the issue and should be not be taken lightly. I also propose to add another information which is the overview of Jasmine Power and Amanda Palmer’s written song “ Mr.Weinstein Will See You Now” which walks listeners through a story where a woman is being called up to office to see a man that has a high position in the workplace. The song contributes to the MeToo movement as the song conveys a personal story and educates the public over the issue of sexual assault during work. All of the profits made through this music are also being donated to #TimesUp, which is a movement fighting for justice for the victims of sexual harassment, similar to the MeToo movement. Ir32620 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Ir32620

Adding Information to "Music" Section

I am adding information about major current ongoing sexual assault allegations against prominent figures in the music industry. The allegations against R. Kelly and Michael Jackson were both publicized by recent documentaries (Surviving R. Kelly and Leaving Neverland) and both Kelly and Jackson face several child sexual abuse accusations. I included information about R. Kelly’s current charges and recent legal troubles. In the information I included about Michael Jackson, I mentioned his past accusations and his acquitted trial. These allegations and the documentaries that publicize them are relevant to the MeToo movement because they are examples of progress towards ensuring legal justice against sexual assault. Additionally, these allegations shed more light on the nature of power and sexual assault in the music industry. The use of documentaries to draw attention to sexual assault allegations also reflects the new ways the MeToo movement is using media to highlight sexual assault.

Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fanchi.wu.1/sandbox Thumbpin (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The changes I made on the article include changed about artists and their part in or against the #MeToo movement. I included information about Kelley and XXXtentacion and their past cases of sexual assault. This ties into how radio stations and streaming services such as Spotify have placed temporary or permanent bans on music created by these artists. This is essential to include because it shows the effect of the #MeToo movement on the everyday music people listen to. These bans not only bring attention to the problem at hand, but they also limit people from having as easy access to music produced by sexual assaulters, causing them to not support the artist as much. This also explains how people have been more aware of sexual harassment and assault in music ever since the start of the movement. The artists removed from the radio and services are no longer as supported as before, bringing attention to the issue.

Roxanne Pallett

I think it would be useful to have a section on Roxanne Pallett and the events that occurred in the Celebrity Big Brother house. They are are good example of false-victimhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaganFitzdan (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. The current lead is wholly inadequate, and consists of a very brief description of how the movement began to spread in the United States in 2017. There is nothing about how it began, its impact on society, church, government, and the people directly affected, nothing about analogous movements in other countries, or some of the backlash. All of these are covered in the body of the article, and need a proportionate summary in the lead.

Conversely, the limited material currently there now about the 2017 viral spread goes into too much realtively unimportant detail for the lead; information about which Hollywood actresses were involved in tweets simply does not belong. Much of the current lead should be moved down into the body of the article, probably into the "Origins" section. By the same token, the lead is not the place for unique information not present in the body; any such information should be moved down, and if important enough, a brief summary can be added to the lead to replace it. Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge Tarana Burke into Me Too (hashtag); dated: December 2017. Proposer's Rationale: No real indication of notability for the individual besides being the founder of the hashtag. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable doing this merge. It's not like we don't have enough sourcing to support a separate article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason for ths merge. References and notability is against a merge.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think she is now notable enough to have her own page. Gene2010 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose She keeps showing up in the news under her own name so I think she deserves her own page Plantlady223 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Articles work fine on their own. Dream Focus 16:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Burke's notability derives from her work on MySpace and IRL. Rather than founder, she was one of the guiding lights for the hashtag, which is a separate topic fit for a separate article. - phi (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Burke is notable in her own right. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Archive problem

How do we merge the Talk:Me too (hashtag)/Archive 1 and Talk:Me Too movement/Archive 1 pages? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

My attempt at the intro/overview

Hi Here's my attempt. I don't know how to change the numbering of all the citations throughout the article, though. Is a bit to advanced for me as I just started today. Anyway, will leave this here for feedback and come back when I've learnt more! cheers Velvet123 (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

1. MeToo is a movement that breaks the silence of widespread sexual harassment and sexual assault in workplaces and institutions.[1][2][3] It gained impetus after the sexual-abuse allegations in 2017 against Harvey Weinstein[7][8] and spread virally as a hashtag on social media.[4][5][6] Thousands of people around the world responded, adding stories of their own experiences in various fields, including the music industry,[35] sciences,[36] academia,[37] religious organisations[45][46], financial services[67] and politics.[38]

Velvet123 (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

List of People Accused in the Me Too movement ?

I want to start a list article of people accused in the MeToo movement. Column headings would likely include, at a minimum, name of accused person, specific accusation (with citations), and accuser. Would a list like this fall within Wikipedia guidelines? Similar lists exist at Vox and Bloomberg, but they vary from each other and aren't as easily searchable as a Wikipedia list. Wanted to check that this wouldn't get deleted before I start building it. --Webster100 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Webster100: when you have stuff like List of most-liked YouTube videos, I see no point of not including it. You also see issues on the inclusion of Neymar's sex allegations. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Webster100: WP:BLPCAT would apply; I believe there would be controversy around most people on such list. wumbolo ^^^ 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Where would you draw the line on the notability of these cases? Would it be cases that are impeccably-sourced to WP:RS sources only? Those notable enough to warrant their own, standalone WP articles? Anything less than that could be a nightmare in terms of liability, BLP violations and vandalism. Looking through the article, there are already individuals named, in a way that the incidents can be contextualized. This strikes me as far more appropriate than a bare list. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I think listing people who have accusations cited in reliable sources, and who already have standalone article is a good standard. I agree with you that context is important, which is why I proposed a list (with an introduction and room for notes) as opposed to a category. At the same time, I think it is important for there to be a central location where all the names are listed, as opposed to people having to hunt for individual cases. Webster100 (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

origin/originator

It seems to me our article is skewing the facts.

1. Before Alyssa Milano's tweet, there was various movements on social media, one of which just happened to use the hashtag "metoo". None of these are very notable.
2. Then Alyssa Milano's tweet, in the context of the conditions of fall '17, started this huge movement. This is the starting point for what this article is about.
3. Then she was made aware of this earlier #metoo, presumably considered it was used for a compatible purpose, and graciously decided to share the credit with Tarana Burke.

Now, is this not the correct order of events?

Assuming you agree it is, I submit our article is skewing the facts in order to create the impression the current movement was originated by Tarana Burke. It appears to me the originator is Alyssa Milano, and that Tarana Burke's role needs to be de-emphasized. We've already established this article is not about just any usage of either the phrase "me too" nor the hashtag "metoo". It is about a huge world-wide movement, and it seems obvious to me the catalyst is Ms Milano's tweet.

I can sympathize with the desire for sisterhood and standing together and all that, but the function of this Wikipedia page is to present the actual history of the movement. That Ms Milano might wish otherwise is irrelevant. If you disagree Ms Burke has gotten undue prominence, please specify exactly which step of the events you think I have gotten wrong above. CapnZapp (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel like the sequence of events you're describing have been adequately covered in the article. What exactly do you want to change? Lonehexagon (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It could be a consequence of an earlier and much bigger event, the Great Scientific Revolution, in 2013 coming from the side of troubles in the workspace not necessarily sexual harassment, first of all in Academia, which is to be figured out (check out carefully the content and references therein). The Ms. Burke's attempts were aimed against rapes and sexual harassment in general, rather not at the workplace. I could add the link to the blog, due to the "non-bias policy", maintaining neutrality, adding another point of view or an opinion. See also my talk page, User_talk:Salamandra85. Well, maybe even no avoid bias over gender (this article is gender-oriented) that surprisingly the origin could be in the events started by a male. But let someone else to do this if needed. My task is to leave this information. --Salamandra85 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson and Woody Allen and further suggestions

Their is some media coverage over females defending males against accusations . One example is Scarlett Johansson and Woody Allen. Another is all of Johnny depp ex wives , girlfriends and even jk rowling who spoke aganist the accusations levelled by Amber heard against Depp . In my opinion me too movement is just another way for people to get attention while ruining good peoples lives and while some cases like Harvey Weinstein were its clearly proven that Weinstein is a cheap Man - the same cannot be said for everyone - their are many articles that prove my opinion . I'd suggest this info and woman defending men should be included as part of critercism aganist what i feel is social justice. Also could somebody add info on backlash of woman defending men . This article particularly the critercism section reads like an SJW puff piece editorial that aims to make it look like all men are predators- the same can be said for some female designers and experts in the fashion industry as well as harrasment by males on males and females on females . This should be included in a special newly created section titled history . Hpdh4 17:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

France : Sandra Muller condemned for defamation

Hi there, I believe that this information needs to be added to the subsection regarding France : French #MeToo (BalanceTonPorc) leader Sandra Muller has been condemned on 25th of September for defamation. She has ordered to pay 15 000€ as a fine, 5 000€ for the Court expenses of the person she accused and had to remove her tweet. She said she wants to appeal the decision. References : BBC Le Monde (fr)

-MosMajorum (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Issues with lede and over-crediting of Alyssa Milano

@Salamandra85: As you've been told on your talk page, you are littering the lede with too much tangential detail and driveby tagging of content that is already sourced in the footnotes and in the body of the article. This is not improving the article. There is ample sourcing that these are not separate movements based on race, or on the actions of only two people, but rather a global idea and action that has built over time, with a handful of key activists who have been significant in its popularization. Your POV edits implying two separate, race-based movements (and only in the US) could be seen as WP:OR, as well as being divisive. That is also contradicted by the sourcing in the entire article. We do not need every detail of Milano's various tweets. You also seem determined to downplay and aggressively tag mentions of Burke. This is inappropriate and raises some red flags about your agenda with this. Milano herself credited Burke on the very next day after her first tweet. Let's stick to what is in the sources, keep the lede concise, and cover all the actionists in this fairly and neutrally - per WP policy. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I didn't say they are different movements based on race. I say they are different movement based on purpose (I provided sources), methods, impact and partly audience. This article has been created in October 2017. So saying "over-crediting of Alyssa Milano" is nonsense. If there is "ample sourcing", then provide them. I just provide all the important information, supported by sources. And you try to keep that biased and censored. Yes, Milano credited Burke after she found information about her. Yet she didn't propose leadership by that. That would be original research. If you persist, the last resort can be the direct intervention of Wikimedia. Yes, to ban who violates the first most important rule. Do you get it? I give you some time for response. Btw, your one more source in the lead section has a minor information about workplace, but not in relation to Burke. I am against fakes!!! --Salamandra85 (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia doesn't intervene in content disputes. – Teratix ₵ 09:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

E.g., they might have to intervene by the law, which is why they write they usually don't do that, but that is possible. If they don't in this case (if needed), bad for them. And after Ms. Burke said she is worried about the movement of Ms. Milano getting big, she just has no moral right of being a leader, maybe even a worker, at least in the movement of Ms. Milano. And if Ms. Burke then says about the movement growing bigger and wider, then this is called "hypocrisy". And even if some sources used the word "origin", that was rather a bad choice of words. If the movement began independently of something, that something cannot be an origin for the movement even if it can resemble another movement or be related to it somehow. As you might already have known, the origin of Ms. Milano's MeToo can be in the year 2013. We will see. --Salamandra85 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Slamandra85, I think the your edits plus this hyperbole show that you're not able to address this topic in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. I am going to gently suggest that you instead focus your energies on articles where you are more able to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and engage with others in a calm manner. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: This is not how neutrality is defined by the wikipedia rules. Maybe you want a simple and nice picture of the situation. With this you act like Weinstein. I cannot let those lies in the article to exist. Why would not you write polite gentle calm nice articles about rapists or serial killers. And how calm would you be if that were directly related to you? I will wait some more time. --Salamandra85 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not the way to improve articles on Wikipedia. Salamandra85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for making personal attacks. Other editors, if this user returns after the timeout and resumes this same behaviour, please take this user to WP:ANI or contact the blocking admin for followup. Thanks, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am reverting the article to its last more or less normal version to satisfy Wikipedia non-negotiable neutrality rule, also "no original research" rule. You can compress the content retaining the keypoints. Or you can use an older troubless lead section version. Still I would suggest creating a separate article for Ms. Burke's activity. The article's body suggests she rather should not be mentioned in the lead section at all as the information of secondary importance. More details with my responses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=924913943#Intractable_behavior_of_users_CorbieVreccan,_Bishonen,_Yunshui --Salamandra85 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Link to Falsifiability article in Me Too movement#False accusations section

@Nblund: Thank you for assuming my edit was made in good faith in your edit summary. However, I do not believe your justification for the revert is defensible. The text of the section states "cases in which it cannot be established if the accused is innocent or guilty". That is no different than saying that a statement cannot be demonstrated to be false or true by observation (i.e. unfalsifiable). While "falsifiability" may be a term commonly used in philosophy-of-science, the same principle of logic applies in a legal context. Otherwise, laws making witchcraft a felony would never have had any justification for being repealed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The linked article doesn't provide any information about how the term might apply in legal context the context of a criminal allegation, and I don't see anyone linking those concepts in any of the sources cited in that section. The fact that we're talking about "false allegations" at all demonstrates that claims of sexual assault are falsifiable through observation. Saying "we don't yet have evidence" is not the same thing as having a theory that can't be subjected to any empirical testing. Nblund ^talk 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: The article doesn't need to provide any information about how the term might apply in a legal context; it is about all statements or hypotheses. I do not dispute that accusations of sexual assault are not unfalsifiable, but if an allegation is made decades after an alleged assault occurred and no physical evidence of the crime exists anymore, then it is just as unfalsifiable as the existence of Russell's teapot. Accordingly, as the section does not just discuss false allegations as the quotation cited before says, "cases in which it cannot be established if the accused is innocent or guilty", "unfalsifiability" is in fact exactly what the text implies. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Links should provide context for readers, so yes, it would need to provide information directly relevant to this article. You're offering original research here by linking a legal question to a philosophical debate about scientific arguments. Claims about historical events are subjected to scientific scrutiny all the time, its not akin to a claim about a teapot revolving around the earth, and unless you can provide some actual sourcing to support that link, it shouldn't be in the article. Nblund ^talk 23:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

CommonKnowledgeCreator, did you read the target article? Falsifiability is a term in science and the philosophy of science. It really does not apply here. Guy (help!) 10:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevance to Call-out culture

Here's an academic source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350506818765318?journalCode=ejwa

Since 2014, we have been studying the ways feminists have increasingly turned to digital technologies and social media platforms to dialogue, network and organize against contemporary sexism, misogyny and rape culture (see Mendes et al., forthcoming). As a research team the sheer volume of attention paid towards this hashtag took us by surprise, but the fact survivors took to social media to share their experiences and engage in a ‘call-out culture’ resonated strongly with our research findings over the past three years. Although #MeToo is perhaps one of the most high-profile examples of digital feminist activism we have yet encountered, it follows a growing trend of the public’s willingness to engage with resistance and challenges to sexism, patriarchy and other forms of oppression via feminist uptake of digital communication.

And here's another paper discussing this connection. Bartlett A., Clarke K., Cover R. (2019) #MeToo: Scandals and the Concept of Flirting. In: Flirting in the Era of #MeToo. Palgrave Pivot, Cham:

‘Call-out’ culture, as it is beginning to be understood, relies on using popular digital media and social networking to make statements and assertions of sexual assault and harassment that would otherwise potentially be ignored by traditional institutions.

—Srid^YO 15:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Error

In the "Policies and laws" section of the article, it says "Congressperson." "Congressperson" is not a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2748:6F00:C9F7:F9A6:A24:E338 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You wish. But you're wrong.[3][4]. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

UK Grooming Gangs

I'm amazed that there is no mention of the hypocrisy of the Me Too movement in the UK. Precisely those who push Me Too (e.g. liberal media) are those who've done their very best to ignore the industrial scale of gang rape of vulnerable working-class girls by largely Pakistani-British men. A clear case of #MeTooProvidedTheAbuserIswhite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.115 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Misses Election Consequences

Article simply misses that the movement started as a public shaming of men and turned into a political tool to get votes out for liberal candiates and against incumbents, thus swinging the USA House of Representatives, many governorships, and significant number of local city races from long time conservative held offices to liberal held offices. Once the publicity rose to a large enough level, it was repeated throughout the 2018 elections to the benefit of liberal candidates at all levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:6C77:EC9D:A642:B44A (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, your assertions need verification from reliable sources. Otherwise, your comments will be merely considered biased or original research. Peaceray (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Request of Help

I was looking for some small help. I created an article User:Bookku/Me Too movement (Pakistan) in user namespace. Article is almost ready but before taking to main namespace Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Using better alternative words etc. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing Information?

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

** The information all seems to be well-dated but there are major stories that are missing from the Wikipedia page. For example, the Bill Cosby story that broke was major and had huge consequences as well as being a turning point. The article seems to not mention this story. In addition, I feel like the Sports section of the article very briefly spoke on the Larry Nassar story. Larry Nassar and Aly Raisman were widely covered in media and so was his trial. The article lacks mentioning the victims as well as his outcome. Malberk (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please add mostly women to the introduction, as the MeToo movement also fights against male sexual abuse.--2605:6000:1526:450B:14D0:FCAA:CEE6:E194 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Women in the intro

Does the MeToo movement include male victims? The intro implies it’s only for women despite there being many accounts of sexual abuse on male victims.2605:6000:1526:450B:5881:42E5:7A6A:8CAB (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Look at how Kevin Spacey was accused of sexual assault against men among other perpetrators. The categories even state violence against men. I feel an edit should be made to include general sexual assault by powerful people, most prominently men Sergei zavorotko (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

False info becoming the norm on wiki

False info to serve an agenda is unfortunately becoming the norm on wikipedia, which should be of grave concern to everyone. It's also why I didn't donate last year and never will again. Among other things, this article (Me Too movement) falsely states:

False reports of sexual assault are very rare.

The two articles cited as references for that statement concluded that between 2–10% of allegations are falsified, i.e. intentionally fabricated, with 14% indeterminate. Thus, 24% could actually be false. Unless you're a moron or serving an agenda, 24% (or even 10%) doesn't qualify as "very rare." It qualifies as "pretty common." Alas, this article is locked so I can't fix that flagrant and obviously deliberate misinformation.

There's a lot of subjectivity surrounding allegations of sexual harassment and assault, which makes it hard to get a handle on the exact numbers, but in my own experience as a college counselor, false allegations of sexual harassment, stalking, etc. are common. They most certainly are not "rare" or "very rare." Someone please correct that erroneous, misleading statement ASAP before wikipedia degenerates into total crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:5F7F:DF1C:203:93FF:FEC6:16CA (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguous language

This article says that Harvey Weinstein was accused of "predatory behavior". That is ambiguous, meaningless language. If the man was accused of sexual assault, then the article should say he was accused of sexual assault. If the man was accused of committing a sex crime, then the article should say he was accused of a sex crime - not "predatory behavior". Sexual crime is hardly "behavior", it's a crime! Plus, use of the term "predatory" is completely ambiguous. All men want to have sex with women, making them all 'predators' of women, just like all meat eaters are 'predators' of animals. Calling people 'predators' is nonsense, sensationalist language Grand Dizzy (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Link to feminism?

This article is listed as an article on 'feminism'!? I don't see any connection? Feminism is the view that man and woman ought to have equality. The #Metoo movement was about outing a series of sex criminals in Hollywood who preyed upon men and women. Can someone please explain the connection? Grand Dizzy (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020

Before "In early 2018, however..." please add "No charges were ever filed." Although the allegation was publicised, and absorbed by Me Too, there was never a prosecution: police found no grounds for arrest at the time, and a full investigation by the divorce courts ended with the accused being awarded sole child custody. Quite important that we mention the absence of charges, given the somewhat vague existing text and the flagrant lies being peddled by some in the public eye (https://twitter.com/michcoll/status/1089717559455334400). Thank you.

 Not done This is already sufficiently covered by the statement just proceeding it, "Following an extended investigation, Oldman was cleared of wrongdoing and awarded sole legal and physical child custody;" Thus, the fact that Oldman was not charged is already explicitly stated. Peaceray (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Trond Giske

The use of the description "sexual assault" makes it sound like he was raping someone. Sexual harassment is a better description of what has come out of his behaviour. Oddeivind (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Role of Men Section

I was reading the article on MeToo today, and the below paragraph in the "Role of Men" section stood out to me. It looks like more of an opinion piece you'd find on a blog, not something you'd find in an encyclopedia. This subject is kind of can of worms, so I would rather not make any edits to this article, but I thought it would be worth pointing out. Thanks!

The role of men is essential when it comes to the #MeToo movement. Usually people will say that all men have to do is stop sexually assaulting women, but it's more than that. There are four things that men can do to be more involved in the #MeToo movement. First, men need to accept the fact that they are more powerful than women, physically, and have more control over women because of their masculinity. Second, men need to realize what women go through. Men have to understand that this happens to women and they always make sure that it doesn't happen to them because it's not fun to go through something so traumatic. Third, they have to approach women in a nice way. When men see another man make a sexual comment to a female, they have to stand up and let it be known that it is wrong to say that. Lastly, men need to fight for the rights of all people. If men speak upon the issues, then more people will start to listen from a man's point of view.[82]"

WhiteWaterBottle (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Mathew mcknight (biggest Canadian case during me too movement)

Mr. McKnight, 33, is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for five sexual assaults committed against young women in the Edmonton bar scene between 2010 and 2016. At one point, he was facing 26 charges of sexual and physical assault against 21 women, but went to trial on 13 sexual assault charges involving 13 women. He was found not guilty in eight of the cases. The defence lawyer accused the young women of wanting attention because of the movement so it allowed them to discredit many of the honest young women’s story. You must read up on the case it will be going into the appellate court in 5 years. Peakyblinders3 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Dubious citation

Labelled dubious the citation from a referenced opinion article, which statement suffers burden-of-proof fallacy (media coverage, “false reports of sexual assault account for only 2% to 10% of all reports.”) Jenna.Maccaulay (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

People's Parity Project

There's an article in yesterday's NYTimes about 4 young law students taking on the legal profession about arbitration, especially around sexual harrassment: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/peoples-parity-project-founders.html. The title is: IN HER WORDS: Meet the Four Harvard Law Grads Taking on the Entire Legal System. I think there should be an article about their organization, or at least a mention in the #MeToo article. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we rename this article to "MeToo movement"

The correct title being "#MeToo movement". Unlike Black Lives Matter, the #MeToo movement is only ever talked about in the hashtag, no-space form, and the "Me Too" form feels ambiguous. Even within the article itself, "MeToo" has 354 matches, "#MeToo" has 329, and "Me Too" only has 87. PBZE (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: I do not disagree persay but I think it's a technical restriction of WikiMedia software, because hashtags usually indicate subsections of an article. See Wikipedia:＃hashtag articles Shushugah (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: That's true, and it's why I proposed it being called "MeToo movement" using Template:Correct title to say it's really "#MeToo movement". Lots of other articles whose correct titles start with hash symbols do the same thing. PBZE (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. MeToo movement, with Correct title template is the way to go. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: The movement isn't limited to the hashtag, so why accept and perpetuate the limiting? Furthermore, the # that denotes a hashtag may also be read as pound, which is counter to the purpose of the movement and clearly an unhelpful oversight. Focus on the Me Too movement, and not how it is written and read as a hashtag. Betterkeks (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Betterkeks: The name being a hashtag wouldn't really imply that the whole movement is limited to the hashtag IMO. Just that that's how it's named. The only people who pronounce the "#" as "pound" are trolls, and I don't think dropping the hash for that reason alone is a good idea. PBZE (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: A reader relying on this Wikipedia page IS influenced to think it is limited, or all about, the hashtag because it is used so often within the article in that context, and because at the very top the article states only a technical limitation prevents the article itself being named after the hashtag. As for only trolls reading "#" as "pound" ... what is the basis of that assumption, given that there are plenty of ordinary people that DO read it as "pound" and that it has been a published name of that symbol/glyph since BEFORE there were hashtags and trolls? Forget the trolls, they oughtn't influence one way or the other. What is the subject of this article: the movement or the hashtag? Betterkeks (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of a thread resurrection happening here. I support PBZE's proposal. This article was the subject of a previous move discussion, so I don't think we can call this an 'uncontentious move'. A formal Requested Move discussion is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Philippines section

A part of the Philippines section seems to be original research. Specifically, "They are afraid to say #MeToo because people do not believe them." This is a big generalization. Nobody believes victims of sexual assault in the Philippines when they speak up? Actually, this statement is more hearsay and doesn't seem to be sourced. I think it should either be removed or re-worded.Caudaequinas (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Me too in UK

There is no separate article for Me Too in U.K. so far.

Here is one ref, issue seems under discussion on social media.

• UK police investigate rape claims
  • Here is (just for record & info) a defense by some follower certainly not of WP RS standard but gives idea of defense which puts blame to victim hood claimant.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Me Too movement → MeToo movement – Seems to be the more common name (disregarding the #). MeToo without the space is used about four times more often in our article (including references). Google Scholar returns four times as many results for "MeToo movement" compared to "Me Too movement". Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —El Millo (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bellon0512, Ashesposito. Peer reviewers: Hernandez.Randy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bricci13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thumbpin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Celarson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dentonix.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rnu6uff.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avlangst.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tumsp23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 27 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brynnbrodie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

#MeToo Is Dead.

The New York Times Killed It https://www.commentary.org/christine-rosen/new-york-times-joe-biden/

How Democrats killed #MeToo https://theweek.com/articles/969779/how-democrats-killed-metoo

The Depressing Future of the #MeToo Movement https://newrepublic.com/article/157665/depressing-future-metoo-movement

I think this page/subject is incomplete without the inclusion of Tara Reade.

Tara was when liberals went from "believe women" to "believe some women." In other words, #MeToo was killed by partisan hacks. Subsequently, #MeToo should be talked about in past tense.

The first sentence of this page should be changed to "The Me Too (or #MeToo) movement, with variations of related local or international names, WAS a social movement against sexual abuse and sexual harassment where people publicize allegations of sex crimes."

I also think there should be section on the cost of speaking out.

"Individuals who come forth about their abuse risk facing scrutiny from peers, coworkers and colleagues, family members, etc. Those who come forth about their abuse can be made to feel ashamed about speaking out and others might outcast the individual. Though not reported to The Times, in 1991, Anita Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Clarence Thomas, who was a nominee to the Supreme Court, had sexually harassed her (MacKinnon 2019). The Senators subjected her to a humiliating interrogation, which was overlooked by an audience on national television. Another former employee had also come forth of Thomas’ abuse, but she was never called to testify. Instead, Hill had to endure the inquisition of the all-male committee’s bullying alone. After the hearings, Hill’s position at the University of Oklahoma was so difficult due to this opposition that she had to leave, which proved to show a lesson to those who ever raised a charge against sexual abuse."

1. MeToo Movement: A Sociological Analysis of Media Representations https://digitalcommons.ric.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1342&context=etd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split. No people opposing after a couple weeks. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 02:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose that MeToo_movement#International_response be split into a separate page called International response to the MeToo movement. The content of the current page is too specific for a general overview and these sections are large enough to make their own page. I would suggest leaving the first general paragraph in the section (and perhaps globalising it a bit) and adding a link to the new article. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree that section makes up a large chunk of the content and should be its own article. Wgullyn (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Support: This would be a great way to fix the page size issue. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 00:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunflowers09 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Antregono.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yare.26 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gracemuranaka.

— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Social Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bb0208 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jjohnson220 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haeli Edwards (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kendall16C.

— Assignment last updated by Catalina0222 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Forgotten 1992 MeToo...

I recently discovered there was a near 'Me Too' in 1992, but it died down {or was quashed?} almost without a whimper.

Barbara Noel's book "You Must Be Dreaming," [5] (Amazon) about years-long malpractice, drug addiction and drugged rape by her psychiatrist, highly respected Dr. Jules H. Masserman, was made into the 1994 movie Betrayal of Trust [6] [IMDb] (on YouTube [7] starring Judith Light), but there is NO mention of either HERE. Even Ann Landers wrote about it in the day: THE MASSERMAN AFFAIR OUT IN THE OPEN AT LAST[8]!

Would someone follow-up? I'm unable to right now. Cheers! Shir-El too 09:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources comparing or tying this to the MeToo movement? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No: I made the comparison after learning that Ms. Noel received $200,000 and two other women who made the same claims vs. Masserman also received cash settlements. Cheers! Shir-El too 10:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Then I don't think we can really use it in *this* article. Maybe in another article that discusses this more broadly, but adding here would be WP:SYNTHy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper Hopefully you or someone else will find it. If it hasn't been tackled in a reasonable length of time I'll try to add a movie article at least [my usual interest]. Cheers! Shir-El too 18:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@ 46.114.160.118 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@ 46.114.160.118 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)