Talk:Safe-space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Schools (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Removed: criticism & examples[edit]

  • The term has been criticized [citation needed] for implying that the rest of a school area is not a safe environment and implying that educators who are critical of sexual minorities create a dangerous space.

The above criticism was removed as "dubious". Hyacinth (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not dubious. That criticism, in similar words, has been made in major publications. See: "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas", published in the New York Times. The criticism should be restored, or reworked to be re-added. 108.95.36.94 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Things an organization can do to support safe space for GLBTQ youth include[1]:
  1. Offer staff trainings
  2. Make being a safe space part of the organization's mission and create visibly post a value statement in your office, online, and on all written documents
  3. If part of a coalition, encourage the coalition to include being a safe space in their mission and values

The above was removed citing "WP:NOTMANUAL". Hyacinth (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Notability[edit]

Why, what, where, and how might this article not meet the general notability guideline? Hyacinth (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lacks significant coverage, the single source apears to be self-published, it appears to me that the article is still a dictionary term, and may also be a neologism. Lionel (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Safe-space" is a pretty long-existing and oft-used term and an idea expressed in several published materials, usually involving LGBT youth and education. That said, there should be (and are) a good amount of coverage and multiple sources. If you contest the notability tag, a solution is to expand the article including these sources. I will locate some, and any more would be helpfulLuminum (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Things an organization can do...[edit]

Removed this content again per WP:NOTMANUAL: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow." The advice/suggestion you are trying to add is not encyclopedic. Please discuss your reasoning here before re-adding this content. Lionel (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another user did add it back right after you removed it. I just edited it to be a little more clear. Indeed, it's not really a how-to, but more ways to identify an organization that supports safe space initiatives. --Jenc21 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Advocates For Youth[edit]

This source is not neutral, does not have editorial oversight, thus is self-published and is only reliable as a source about themselves. Per WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Since this article is about Safe Space and not Advocates, I'm removing this source. A better, reliable source would be for example the New York Times. Lionel (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservative teachers, students, parents, and/or activists[edit]

Obviously POV, original research, and not sourced. If there are no objections, I'll remove this content. If you do object, please explain how this is not POV. Lionel (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Tips and Strategies ...[edit]

An editor repeatedly adds from the source "Tips and Strategies for Creating a Safe Space for GLBTQ Youth" this:

Things an organization can do to support safe space for GLBTQ youth include offering staff trainings, including being a safe space in the organization's mission and create and visibly posting a value statement in the organization's office, online, and on all printed documents, and if part of a coalition by encouraging the coalition to include being a safe space in their mission and values.

I keep deleting it per WP:NOTMANUAL "articles should not read like a 'how-to' style owners manual, advice column..." The title, "Tips and Strategies..." really says it all. The previous discussion (or lack of) is here. The editor chooses not to discuss the matter so I'm bringing it here. Is this content non-encyclopedic thus making removal proper? Lionel (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to RfC: I'd exclude it unless enough reliable secondary sourcing can be found (I would not say that the primary source in question is sufficient), include text of the ilk "research suggests that violence against GLBTQ youth can be reduced by the adoption of value statements" or "multiple organizations have advocated the addressing of safe space status in an organization's mission". The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  • This doesn't really have anything to do with "language and linguistics". Please consider removing the RFC tag and relisting it elsewhere. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How to link to the Safe Space Program (US trademark)[edit]

I belong to EQUAL!, a GLBT Employee Resource Group at Alcatel-Lucent. We actually own a US trademark for 'The Safe Space Program' and its logo; our program is actually meant to promote an inclusive workplace where GLBT employees can strive (more info on our website). Now I understand that Wikipedia is not a place to promote one's organization, but we would like for the Safe Space Program to get credited appropriately; what do you recommend is the best way to move forward? Do so in this existing page, or create a new, dedicated page? My apologies for these basics questions - I've never been on the other side of Wikipedia before. Jmeyer83 (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If it were notable it would probably be OK to include it under External Links. Ben Finn (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Question, if possible[edit]

Hello everyone. I would like to know if the term "safe space" has been invented in the LGBT culture, and if it is specifically realted to sexual or gender harassment. I've know this term few years ago, but in the context of "libraries as a safe space" (in which everyone is welcome, and everyone can read or ask whatever they want and not be judged). So I'm curious if I can apply the term in much a broader sense (as in the library context). Thanks! Aubrey (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It has much broader application. I will be be creating an article, which may include the material in this article. It can apply to women only spaces, black women only spaces, or a place where references to trauma are restricted. I will provisionally title the new article as autonomous space, but probably safe space, without the hyphen, would be better, see category:autonomous space. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I reckon this article is too strongly slanted towards LBGT issues - in the UK at least 'safe space' seems to have a more general application to include religious and maybe political issues. See below re my merger proposal which would rectify this. Ben Finn (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose this article is merged with Autonomous space, as for some reason this article has been written to be specifically about LBGT issues, even though (in the UK at least) the meaning is not restricted in that way. As a result we have the ridiculous situation that Safe space redirects to Autonomous space rather than to this article Safe-space! As the two topics are short, heavily overlap and are indeed probably synonymous in some contexts (e.g. the UK?) there seems no point having separate articles. Ben Finn (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"open and accepting to opinions aligned to his or her own"[edit]

Am I missing something here? How is it even worth mentioning that someone is "open and accepting to opinions aligned to his or her own"? Unless this is supposed to be a euphemism for "not accepting any opinions disagreeing with one's own"? If the latter, this should be stated, else it is just a tautology. On the same note, how is the sequence "anti-LGBT violence, harassment, hate speech or disagreement" supposed to make sense? How does "disagreement" belong into the same category as anti-LGBT violence, harassment and hate speech? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Need explanation[edit]

Well, to me it seems a very US thing. I've just found this word on the internet and I simply can't understand:

  • What is this exactly? It is a room in a school?
  • From what defends it exactly? From arguments? From "hate speech"? With walls???
  • Anybody can visit one?
  • What is there?

The article didn't answer these questions, but these are my question finding first time on the internet. The article implies to know and understand a lot of the U.S. liberalist terminology, but honestly, you have gone so far, that we, out of the U.S. simply don't understand the whole concept.

85.233.61.35 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering the Safe-Space VS Free Speech argument going on right now with U.S. college campuses[edit]

This article should be reworked. This is not only a LGBTQ invention. There are also serious 1st amendment considerations as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4202:2BB0:BCF6:626E:DD5D:CF98 (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The LGBTQ-centric focus in this article doesn't reflect the current conversation. I suggest that the re-write focus less on enumerating which groups are and are not included, since that's in constant flux. The protected groups in question should simply be "marginalized groups" or something of that sort, along with a non-exhaustive list of examples (LGBTQ, racial and ethnic groups, people with disabilities, etc.). I agree that there are free speech and first amendment issues at play here, but since those conversations are ongoing I don't think there's a way to cover them in a manner worthy of an encyclopedia. Not only that, but a focus on the first amendment would make this article even more US-centric than it already is. Mebbott (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to call BS on this section[edit]

In gay-only groups, the desire for safe space may represent a "special ritual time spent in a ritual space" where "heterosexuals are cautiously avoided".[5] However, this may allow the comfort necessary for other actions. Mike Homfray observes, "Gay and lesbian people may perceive the pub or bar as being 'their' space, and so as somewhere they can 'perform' and be open without the fear of rejection or hostility from the heterosexual majority, which may be perceived as hostile." Homfray adds, "In this situation, the perception of safe gay space can allow the development of a sense of community and confidence, which in turn may contribute to the creation of rights-based movements."

This perspective sounds undue and like one from a repressive part of the world or from the far distant past. In my experience living in San Francisco as a straight male, I found the majority of gay groups to be inclusive of heterosexuals on their own turf and in their own clubs. I also found that the rights-based movements were composed of both straight and gay. Something just isn't right with this section. Yes, there's always going to be a hardcore minority in every group that seeks separation, but it's completely undue to represent that minority as the norm. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section. There were more than a few issues with it. The first source is a marketing book and is being used to make contentious claims. The second part was just of one person in one part of the world and looked promotional to me but more importantly, it was not a rationale but an opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right Viriditas, being a gay guy myself, I always felt, that separating yourself and being excluded and discriminated by others are basically "two sides of the same coin". I don't need a designated "safe space", when I am insulted I can speak up for myself as a grown man, I am not a child that needs to be sheltered. Moreover, I'd rather be confronted with someones hatred or ignorance towards me, than having people hide their true feelings behind a fake smile, which is nothing short of being lied to constantly. That is a much worse way of treating people than sharing resentments openly and part ways (who says that all people have to agree on anything or always get along with anybody?). And I am not the only gay guy who is sick and tired of being instrumentalized by strange ideologists as their "poster boy", just as I am not automatically siding with gender theorists, just because I am gay. These people tend to "speak for the LGBT community" in an unsolicited and presumptuous way (given, there is actually such a thing like an actual LGBT community, which I personally dispute, as most gays define themselves by so much more, than just their sexual orientation, e. g. being a cyclist or being a lawyer etc. is much more defining for their personality, than simply being born as a gay man; just as for sure not all heterosexuals feel being part of a "hetero-community"). So this article should be curated with most of caution and restraint when it comes to such wide generalizations. When in doubt, better leave them out. And personally, I am a grown man and college student and I am so sick and tired of this safe-space agenda that a few outspoken and easily raving people try to shove down everybody's, including mine, throat all around the campus. "Safe-space" is an euphemism for passive aggressive tyranny of these people.95.90.196.142 (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Balance verses argument[edit]

If there is to be balance in the article in the form of critical commentary or counter opinion, you cannot use the opinion as the source. It becomes a primary source that only demonstrates that the person said it, but whether or not it is notable to mention is based on the overall scholarly coverage of the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I agree the Criticism section you deleted had an undue weight / single POV problem. I'm not sure about the other problems you mentioned, though: reliability of the sources, misuse of primary sources, original research. I was careful to closely rephrase, summarize, or directly quote reliable sources, and to present their claims as opinions rather than fact, following guidelines such as WP:NEWSORG and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I don't think I slipped up, but I'll take a closer look. Could you point me to which statements I wrote that weren't supported by a reliable source? Would expanding the section with more viewpoints help? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The criticism section must be restored. If it needs expansion, fine, but it needs to be there. Sage (Buzz me) 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section needs to be restored[edit]

The reasons given for removing it were not sufficient. Noted examples of criticism are far from "original research", and to the extent anyone believes this, their argument needs to be expanded on if we're to take it as true whatsoever. Otherwise, this looks like deliberate suppression of criticism on account of bias in favor of this concept. 108.95.36.94 (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's correct. Someone revert the edit or I'm making a new "Criticism" section. Sage (Buzz me) 01:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

Safe-spaces aren't only about LGBT-issues, they are also about race relation issues and racism. The article should be updated to make that clear, until that is done the article is inaccurate. 37.191.175.37 (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've updated article to specify safe space can apply to various marginalized groups. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Very biased article[edit]

The article definitely should contain information about the big controversy surrounding safe-spaces. I don't have time to write anything proper right now, but it should mention how a lot of people feel it suppresses free speech [1] and freedom of though. There's a lot out there to find about the controversy using Google.

The liberal commentators/media celebrities fighting against safe spaces and the supposed destruction of the first-amendment on college campuses should be mentioned (Bill Maher, Stephen Fry[2] etc), but so should the conservative ones. The South Park episode should probably get a small mention too. 37.191.175.37 (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. People like Milo Yiannopoulos and people like Stephen Fry should both have a decent part in the article. I would suggest the addition of a "Controversy" section. Sage (Buzz me) 20:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section has been put back; do not remove it.[edit]

We needed the criticism section back so that we could work towards some semblance of an NPOV. It needs work. It needs to be improved. But it needs to be there. Don't remove it. Sage (Buzz me) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Now, because of this, I have removed the cleanup tag that was there because of the section's absence. Sage (Buzz me) 15:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@TheSageOfNE: I've added more criticism from writers such as Milo Y.

DrStrauss (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

UK[edit]

In the UK section, there is an Edinburgh story credited to (London) Evening Standard. 'Standard' is not generally regarded as a a very reliable source on anything, but especially on events at teh other end of GB. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

isn't this re-segregation?[edit]

human rights activist is the past have fought for ending segregationism on race/gender/... now there is a figth from people that identify with those who fought against this, that are fighting to re-install segregation ? 11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.255.27 (talk)

Well, if you think that this viewpoint isn't adequately covered in the article, then as long as you can find reliable sources to back it up, there'a nothing to stop you from adding that information to the article. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
11:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)