Talk:Me Too movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Me Too (hashtag))
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Requested move 28 December 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  talk 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Me Too (hashtag)Me Too – Seems to be the primary topic as it is listed at the top of Me Too (disambiguation). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose and please put Me Too (disambiguation) back at Me Too where it was this morning. WP:RECENT In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RECENT and WP:10YT. At this time, we cannot determine a primary topic due to recent-ism with this article and movement. There has been no evidence put forward to suggest that is is primary topic or has long term significance. We can always revisit this issue later. CookieMonster755 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755:, well it satisfies your argument. If you read the article it clearly says "Social activist and community organizer Tarana Burke created the phrase "Me Too" on the Myspace social network[8] in 2006 as part of a grassroots campaign". I don't know why it is being assumed this is recent (probably because of the word "hashtag"), but this phrase existed way before the Weinstein effect. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The "me too" campaign was not well known back in 2006. The Weinstein effect has popularized the name of the campaign, that does not mean it has automatic primary topic status. CookieMonster755 01:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
And a contender for being as primary as this hashtag/campaign is? I see none at the dab page. Obscure topics existing are not a justification to have a term disambiguated, and comments like "it is RECENTISM" and "let's rediscuss in 2030" are merely poor and speculative, and don't make a discussion productive. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no primary topic, therefore a dab page is the best solution. You are right, obscure topics existing are not a justification to have a term disambiguated. However, a Billboard song is hardly obscure. I would support Me Too campaign or Me Too movement as WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. CookieMonster755 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral, I'm more supportive of Me Too campaign, as it is not solely a hashtag. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but strongly support moving to "MeToo" or "Me Too (campaign)". The disambiguation page name needs to be fixed back to the version without "(disambiguation)" until a consensus is reached. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian : "#MeToo campaign" In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I guess [Me Too (hashtag)] is not the primary topic. Sawol (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral I support "Me too (campaign)" Plantlady223 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Me Too with a space, but would support MeToo (like User:Paintspot above) or MeToo (hashtag) without the space. "Me Too" with the space is not only ambiguous, but it's not even the usual name, since it's not how people type this name of this topic: Even if technical restrictions mean we can't use "#MeToo", I'm not sure why we ended up with a space in the article title to begin with. And then there's the question, still unresolved, about whether the article is going to be about the hashtag movement strictly, or whether the term "MeToo movement" is being (imprecisely?) applied to a broader topic because society doesn't have a name for the whole roughly-2015-to-now thing yet: see #This article should be changed to focus on the "Me too movement" above, Talk:Weinstein effect#Requested move 9 December 2017 (similar issue for a different term), and #Merging Weinstein effect article to this article? above. --Closeapple (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since it's not the clear primary topic. Would support a move to Me Too (campaign), but that should be a separate discussion, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose Both "Me Too" and "MeToo", per WP:ASTONISH. I would however support Me Too (campaign) (seems WP:TOOSOON to call it "movement").ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's not April Fools yet mate, if you're serious then well ... no!...., There's different subjects of Me Too which are more notable and more PT than this. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this particular move to the generic title. Meghan Trainor just released a song with this title in 2016 (over 400 million views on YouTube) and the lyrics clearly aren't derived from this movement. I'd support a move to MeToo as the camel case form is a clear indication that it's this specific thing. The redirect MeToo was just created 18 October 2017 which both speaks to the "recentism" of this thing and the idea that people shouldn't be "astonished" when they specifically search for the camel case form. Silence Breakers is another name for this, just coined by Time magazine. The redirect Silence Breakers was just created on 6 December 2017‎, and briefly redirected here before being retargeted to Time Person of the Year. So the long-term-significant-term for this has yet to be confirmed; "time" will tell whether "Me Too" or "Silence Breakers" or some other term wins out. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Also speaking to the "recentism" of this is that this article itself was just created on 17 October 2017‎. Confess when Time came out with their Person of the Year, my first reaction was "Me Who?", but I get it now. I don't follow Tweets much at all. wbm1058 (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – Total case of WP:RECENTISM. However, I would support a move to "MeToo" with the words together because of the hashtag if requested. JE98 (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pure WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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[edit]

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%.[1][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 [3] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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

  1. ^ Malkin, Michelle. "Beware the Rape Allegation Bandwagon". RealClearPolitics. Archived from the original on December 26, 2017. Retrieved December 26, 2017.
  2. ^ Turvey, Brent; Savino, John; Baeza, John. False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports. Elsevier. p. 200. ISBN 9780128013601.
  3. ^ MacDonald, J. (May 1973). False accusations of rape. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 7, 170-194.
  4. ^ Greenfield, L.A. (February 1997). An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault: Sexual offenses and offenders. [NCJ-163392]. US DOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  5. ^ Brown, Crowley, Peck, and Slaughter (March 1997). Patterns of genital injury in female sexual assault victims. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 176, 609-616.

Merger proposal[edit]

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)

Underwear photo[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Too much for individual writers in unbalanced Criticism section[edit]

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.--APStalk 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!

Cathrine Deneuve's involvement and letters[edit]

'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 (talkcontribs) 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."[1]
Oppose re: "Right to pester" is what's reported in the U.S. and U.K. news, as stated in the reference and others.[2][3] What is the original French phrase and what alternative translations do you propose?
Oppose re: the word "denounce" it is in the headline.[4] 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.”[5] 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 (talkcontribs) 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.[6]
Sorry about that :) Plantlady223 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Rename page to "Me Too (movement)"[edit]

The current name Me Too (hashtag) is not how this movement is typically referred to. People usually refer to it as the "#MeToo movement" or sometimes just "#MeToo". If we keep the hashtag in the name it should be MeToo (hashtag) as #MeToo doesn't have a space when used as a hashtag. However, since we can't include the hashtag in the article name, I suggest we change it to Me Too (movement), since there are many versions of the hashtag in different languages, and that would cover all of them. Thoughts? Lonehexagon (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lonehexagon: Please see WP:RM#CM for instructions on how to open a move request. This will put it on a move list so we can get wider consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I will. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Requested move 22 January 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. It seems there's clear consensus here for move. Almost everyone has subsets of suggestions but "Me Too", with "movement" without parentheses almost has the general support. All other reasonable titles can be created as redirects (non-admin closure)Ammarpad (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


Me Too (hashtag)Me Too (movement) – The current name Me Too (hashtag) is not how this movement is typically referred to. People usually refer to it as the "#MeToo movement" when talking about it in English (at least on Google and news sites if you search for "MeToo" or "Me Too"), though there are many variants of "Me Too" hashtags in different languages. If we were going to keep "hashtag" in the name, it should be MeToo (hashtag) as #MeToo doesn't have a space when used as a hashtag. However, since we can't include the hashtag in the article name, and there are so many variants of hashtags, I suggest we change it to Me Too (movement). This has the additional benefit of making it more inclusive since this title would be less specific to the English variant. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • General Support. I wonder if "Me Too movement" or "MeToo movement" may be better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Another option could be "Me Too (campaign)" (or "Me Too campaign", doesn't matter), as some people suggested that earlier. Or "MeToo", an existing redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Alternative. Move it to MeToo which already (correctly) redirects to this article. --В²C 19:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose using the term "campaign" in the title because campaign refers to "work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal" and this movement isn't organized by any one group. A movement is "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas," which is closer to what #MeToo is. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support MeToo for WP:NATURALDIS and WP:SMALLDETAILS. CookieMonster755 16:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I oppose MeToo. It is unnecessarily simple and this movement is never referred as just "MeToo" without a hashtag or indicating it's a movement. It is also not inclusive to the dozens of "Me Too" alternatives in other languages that are a big part of the same movement, like #MoiAussi, #WoYeShi and #YoTambién. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Last I checked this was the English WP and therefore favors, you know, the English variants of terms like this. --В²C 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That's true, but the article is covering a movement that, although it started in the US, has become a global movement. The purpose of Wikipedia is to choose a title that is "recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent."[1]. If you search for "MeToo" in Google news, it just about always has the hashtag except when combined with the word "movement," therefore in order to be recognizable, consistent, clear, natural and precise, it should be some variant of MeToo (hashtag), MeToo movement, or Me Too movement. The instructions for naming articles on wikipedia[2] suggests searching through Google Scholar and Google news to try to get an understanding of the most common usage. Here is Google News,[3] which has many, many examples that support my point. When I checked Google Scholar there weren't many entries because the movement is so new, but the ones I found did use the hashtag[4] except one example that referred to it as the "'MeToo' campaign". The other entries for "MeToo" or "Me-Too" or "Me Too" talk about different topics. Have you seen a significant number of examples of people referring to #MeToo just saying "MeToo" without either the hashtag or some sort of indication it is a movement/campaign? If people only rarely use that term by itself, I don't think it makes a clear, recognizable, natural or precise article title. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support some version of Me Too movement. Oppose MeToo. We're not anywhere close to primary topic at this point. We need a disambiguator used on reliable sources. Hashtag doesn't cover the entire subject anymore. BusterD (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Not anywhere close to primary topic for MeToo? That this is the primary topic is established, as MeToo is already the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article, which means this article's topic is the primary topic for MeToo. Unless it's an error. But, then, what other uses of "MeToo" are there? --В²C 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Just for argument's sake, http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/A/AOL-.html --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • We do have an entire disambiguation page dedicated to it: Me Too. So somebody besides me thinks there's more than one search valid term here. Just because it's trending now means very little long term. BusterD (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
          • But we're talking about the primary topic of "MeToo", not "Me Too". In other words, if someone searches with "metoo", what are they looking for if not this article? --В²C 21:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
            • So we disagree. Is User:Born2cycle planning to badger each and every contributor who disagrees with their position? Does that editor think this will convince me to change my assertion? BusterD (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Don't mean to badger anyone, just want to make sure there are no misunderstandings about the situation. My question stands. --В²C 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
                • That's a great question. As one example of what else they might be searching for with MeToo, they could be looking for MeToo, the branding name of television station WMEU-CA.[5] "Me Too" and "Me-Too" are also regularly used in the pharmaceutical industry to describes certain types of drugs (check out the Wikipedia entry for Me-too compound)). If you type "MeToo" into Google Scholar, there are many different topics that come up, including the pharmaceutical use, but never about #MeToo without the hashtag or mentioning it's a movement or campaign.[6] Lonehexagon (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • Are any of those significant uses of MeToo (no space) sufficient to make MeToo redirect to MeToo (disambiguation) or Me Too (disambiguation)? Because currently this article's subject is treated as the primary topic of "MeToo", since MeToo is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. --В²C 03:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • It doesn't seem to be a contest - see the page views. I would say the answer to the primary topic question for Me Too as well as MeToo is indisputably the subject of this article. --В²C 03:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
                    • Yes, but the point is we're trying to come up with the right name for the article. MeToo doesn't fit this article as the main title for other reasons besides that it should go to a disambiguation page. If you search Google Scholar for "Me Too" or "MeToo" then many, many things come up. Therefore those search terms are not precise enough. The main factor that differentiates this topic from those other topics is the hashtag, or an indication that it is some sort of movement. Before the movement, people used MeToo, Me-Too and Me Too commonly to refer to types of drugs. When it has the hashtag or the term "movement" it NEVER means anything else. Including either the hashtag or a word similar to "movement" gives the most clear, precise and natural title you can get without reducing away so much as to become ambiguous. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as presented. I don't think it should be changed simply to "Me Too movement". I could support "#MeToo movement" but there might be technical issue with including the hashtag symbol in the title. #MeToo became notable and met GNG as a hashtag. #MeToo is largely a social media phenomena so it doesn't seem reasonable to change the title so it doesn't include the word "hashtag" or the hashtag symbol (#), however I'm not opposed in general to including the word "movement" in the title, as long as don't remove hashtag.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Just to confirm, you're saying you oppose MeToo but possibly support MeToo (hashtag). Unfortunately, the hashtag symbol can not be used in the title for technical reasons :( Lonehexagon (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I support MeToo (hashtag).--DynaGirl (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What about ♯MeToo? --В²C 16:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That would be optimal, and my first choice, too. But unfortunately due to technical limitations we cannot include the hashtag in the name, so we're trying to come up with the best alternative. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
      • That's why I used the sharp sign instead of the hash tag - no technical limitation for using the sharp sign in a title, as my link and redirect demonstrate... --В²C 19:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Good idea В²C. I support ♯MeToo.--DynaGirl (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It is an interesting suggestion. We're proposing to intentionally misspell the hashtag in order to work around the technical restriction on naming? I can see a few issues with that... BusterD (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the above demonstrates that it's practically indiscernible from the correct spelling. You can't really type it in, but as long as what people are likely to type in redirects here that doesn't matter. You can link to it directly, like this: ♯MeToo, so that's good. If you search for MeToo in WP search, I don't think it will show up. But other potential titles that would redirect to it would show up, so that's probably not a problem. It can be listed on dab pages and would show up quite recognizably and concisely in cat lists... I think it's worth a try. --В²C 23:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't think this might cause problems with naive editors trying to add links to #MeToo which would make a blue link to a (usually) non-existent section in the article the link appears in. olderwiser 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of that. I could see that being a problem. Are there any past cases of intentionally misspelling an article to get around technical restrictions and make it look as "close" as possible? I wonder if this breaks Wikipedia's rule that titles must be "natural," "precise," and "consistent," especially since the page then wouldn't show up if you search for "MeToo" in WP search. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's really nothing preventing naive editors from linking to #MeToo already, albeit it would be more likely if the actual title was ♯MeToo. Okay, I'm back to support MeToo as the best choice per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (by a mile). --В²C 17:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Per BusterD. --Volvlogia (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Me Too movement. No parentheses, no #, no musical sharp sign. The hashtag topic is a smaller scope topic now subsumed into the movement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
As sources describe the topic with the term “movement” there is no need to use it parenthetically, non parenthetically is preferred per WP:Natural. “Me Too” is better than “MeToo” as a choice for formal professional styling given that both are used in sources. Drop the “hashtag” word and it’s symbol “#” as medium-specific styling now superseded by the wider movement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You can't count two options together when there is only one article title, but the others can be redirects. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and the two are different in a significant way. MeToo movement has the words combined in social media/hashtag format, even if it doesn't contain the hashtag symbol, so it's a little better than just Me Too movement in my opinion. As another suggestion, if the word "movement" is important for some people to include in the title, how about ♯MeToo movement? I think the hashtag is important because it's used in predominance of reliable sources and also to reflect this is a social media phenomenon. Do a Google news search on Me Too. Every title I see that pops up includes "#MeToo" (one word with the hashtag). If we're going to follow the sourcing it seems "Me Too" should be a redirect. and the actual title should be ♯MeToo or ♯MeToo movement. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
So it seems we have three main questions. 1.) "MeToo" vs "Me Too" 2.) Whether to include "movement" or not 3.) Whether to include "(hashtag)" or a ♯ instead of a # . Lonehexagon (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
1a Me Too (hashtag)
1b MeToo (hashtag)
2a Me Too (movement)
2b MeToo (movement)
2c MeToo movement
2d Me Too movement
3a Me Too (campaign)
3b Me Too campaign
4a Me Too
4b MeToo
5a #MeToo
6a ♯MeToo
6b ♯MeToo movement
My !vote:
1a Me Too (hashtag) Current. 7/10
1b MeToo (hashtag) 7.4/10 (the hashtag has no space)
2a Me Too (movement) 7.5 /10 (the movement encompasses the intial hastag trend)
2b MeToo (movement) 7.4/10 (not sure about no space from the hashtag mixed with the movement which usually has a space)
2c MeToo movement 7.5/10 (more natural than 2b)
2d Me Too movement 8/10 (natural, matches broad use post hashtag breakaway)
3a Me Too (campaign) 6.5/10 (not really a campaign, no central driver)
3b Me Too campaign 6.7/10 (more natural than 3a)
4a Me Too 4/10 (ambiguous)
4b MeToo 8/10 (works. Relic of the hashtag, no longer a hashtag)
5a #MeToo 5/10 (awkward for new editors, # is a problem character, topic has moved beyond the hashtag)
6a ♯MeToo 3/10 (deliberate misuse of characters. homoglyphs create more problems than they solve)
6b ♯MeToo movement 3/10 (same as 6a)
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

MeToo and BLP policy[edit]

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)

South Korea[edit]

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, –Davey2010Talk 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)

Remove paragraph about Gender studies scholar Eva Lundgren[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Remove the sentence

Reason[edit]

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)

origin/originator[edit]

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 22:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018[edit]

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[1] 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.[2] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

List of local alternative hashtags[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Recent additions[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[1] 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

  1. ^ Breeden, Aurelien; Peltier, Elian (2018). "Response to French letter denouncing #MeToo shows a sharp divide". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2018. Retrieved January 15, 2018.

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

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[edit]

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)

HimToo[edit]

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.[1][2][3] 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

Hidden dissuasion[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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