Talk:Rebecca Watson
Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rebecca Watson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Gallery and stuff
I propose we lose the gallery completely. All of the images are old and none of them really add anything. Also we should try to get a more up to date image for the head of the article. The 2011 image can move down to the elevator incident section if we want to keep it at all.
We should also mention her current activities. She has a science/comedy/quiz podcast called Quiz-o-Tron which looks like it is notable enough to mention briefly but not to cover in depth. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I removed the gallery. I also swapped the images around so that the 2012 image is at the top. It's not great but it is better than it was. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Elevatorgate
I've changed the heading of the "Elevator incident" section to "Elevatorgate", which is what this is usually called in the media and other reliable sources. To me, "Elevator incident" sounds vague and nefarious, whereas the "-gate" suffix connotes more of an overblown public reaction (see List of "-gate" scandals). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- It was not an overblown reaction. It only seems so, because the main incident remains curiously missing (for nearly a decade!). Where’s the evidence? check it backwards. “Dear Muslima” was a comment on a blog post by PZ Myers titled “Always Name Names”, and that titular name to name was Stef McGraw. And that was, because Watson brought a feud with her into a talk, titled “Rebecca Watson: The Religious Right vs. Every Woman on Earth | CFI Leadership Conference 2011” (see YouTube) where she made severe allegations against McGraw, and more so “people in the audience right now”. Check on YouTube, most happens between minute 12 and 16. So, Dawkins comments on this “name names” thread, but actually writes a sarcastic response to a “Dear Muslima” in effect that she can’t expect help, because western atheist feminists are caught up in first world problems. When asked, he comments moments later that he, too, found it overblown that there was this flame war about a double entendre in a lift. So, Dawkins clearly believes that this flame was about the lift incident nothing-story, even though it moved on to much more severe issues. In reality, there were severe accusations in Watson’s CFI talk, I stress this — you can watch right now — death threats, sexual abuse, rape victims. McGraw and “people in the audience right now” were implicated directly. Watson literally says this, marvel at the slides. But crucially, when the name names discussion happened, the video was not online. Thus, the American movement and attendees there were discussing the severe stuff, while everyone else (including Dawkins) were lagging behind, believing it was about the lift story. Wikipedia engages in a purposefully false story, in part because the incidident was not notable for neutral “Papers of Record” to write about it, and those who did write about it where American feminist sources, often known friends of Watson (e.g. Amanda Marcotte) —Lokkhen (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia follows published, reliable sources. We don't interpret their contents ourselves, but summarize the views of secondary sources. Sources such as LeDrew (2016, p. 198) and Meagher (2018, p. 101) do suggest the reaction was overblown; nonetheless, we should use the same name for the incident that reliable sources do. Amanda Marcotte is not cited anywhere in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Defending shoplifting?
This is a non-issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I concur with the removal of this material. As stated, it's pure trivia based on primary sources. The word defended is an interpretation of the sources themselves, making it original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
References
|
Primary vs tertiary source for direct Dawkins quote dispute
TL;DR: I want to add two new sources at the end of a Dawkins quote: https://web.archive.org/web/20110818212451/https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php#comment-4295492 https://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/. Can be reduced to only pharyngula blog link if it's necessary. @Sangdeboeuf disagrees with my position and reverts my edits.
Who is right? Relevant discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sangdeboeuf#Primary_vs_tertiary_source_for_direct_quote_dispute Konradmb (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I stated, the Dawkins quote should really be paraphrased – or quoted briefly as per MOS:QUOTE – instead of copy-pasted in full. Regarding sourcing, the Skepchick source is out immediately because it's self-published by someone other than Dawkins. It's unclear whether a comment posted to Pharyngula is even a reliable primary source per WP:USERGEN. The site is under Myers' editorial control, not Dawkins'.The book citation is also preferred because according to Wikipedia policy, secondary sources are preferred. Primary sources are easy to misuse and often lead to undue WP:WEIGHT. Sources only have to be reliable and available in some form. They don't have to be convenient or freely accessible. See WP:FUTON. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)