Talk:Shirtstorm

[Per the Talk page guidelines, BLP issues and preparing for merge has been moved to its correct location at the bottom of the page.]

Saying "some women" took offence is wrong

I see you have removed "radical feminist". This is not an insulting term and also used by members of this group to describe themselves (radfems). I think It is important to keep it in, because the origin of the dispute otherwise seems to be completely random. Also this behaviour was widly denounced and saying it was just "some women" is throwing half of the worlds population under the bus (imagine saying "some -members of a big group- think its ok to do things -radical members of said group- do")you also erase male members who identify as radical feminists.

The people who were offended by the shirt were members of a certain group connected by a world-view and an ideology they share. I also think its important to keep in the "factual feminist" description of Christina Hoff Sommers who uses it herself to distance herself from the new radicals. Also Shirtstorm doesn't exist in a vacuum, so I would somehow refer to the -Gates that came before and came after this. Helester (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now changed the description back to "radical feminist" from "some people (mostly women). This is an event that has sparked on twitter if you look at the initial tweet you see there are about the same amount of men and women who agree https://twitter.com/roseveleth/status/532538957490561024 its hard to tell now because if you search for #shirtstorm you will mostly find women and men who disagree. But saying it was mostly women who took offence is an assumption and I do not think it can be hold. I have also added the description "factual Feminist" to Christina H. Sommers, I have not resolved the deleting of the other -Gates because I think it is not as distinct. Helester (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Radical feminist" is a term that doesn't exist outside of a loaded vocabulary of opprobium, and so its use is incompatible with the principles set out in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Moreover, no reliable published source has referred to those who objected to the shirt as "radical feminists", nor has any evidence been adduced that this episode has caused a backlash against "radical feminism", so the usage of these terms likewise violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. As for "factual feminist", I haven't any idea what one is or might be.

Drawing the comparison to other "-gate"s etc is a form of original research because you have drawn the parallel yourself; it isn't mentioned in the published sources. If you wish, feel free to quote someone who has likened these events to each other, or include wikilinks to the Wikipedia articles on these controversies in a "See also" section. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Most people have called the aggressors "feminist" like in this new time article http://time.com/3589392/comet-shirt-storm/ can I include this in the description? Btw a factual feminist is as far as I understand a feminist that builds their feminism on facts and not on feelings, they back up their claims. Helester (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Time column is an opinion piece, not a news story, and is seeking to propound a particular point of view on the controversy. You should be looking for how opponents are typically described in press coverage, not op-eds. Avoid characterizations and freighted language like "radical feminist" and "factual feminist" (also because in the case of the latter there is no such idiom) in favour of neutral, descriptive language. The reader should not be able to discern a "for-or-against" point of view in the article, and unfortunately your personal point of view comes through all too clearly, which it shouldn't. The article can certainly quote, in proportion (see WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight), people who are "for or against", but the article should be seeking to describe the controversy, not take a position in it. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, I now see what was wrong with my original article. I will try my best to avoid the mistakes I have made in my future work. Helester (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Actually Rrburke, you've made a few mistakes in your analysis. The TIME piece doesn't seem to be an op ed, and you saying nd is seeking to propound a particular point of view on the controversy. is a bit disengenius to how actually policy sees it. WP:BIASED. The fact that a source may be biased in one way does not equate its unreliable nature or the fact that it could be usable in its presence stance. Additionally, the fact that 'radical feminist' doesn't exist is absolutely out of the question. Radical_feminist Now the stance of it in the reliable sources is another matter which may need to be physically examined, but the term does exist and you saying it doesn't doesn't negate the fact that it does. Even so if giving you the fact that it's an op ed, it could be used by the nature of WP:RSOPINION. The fact that we should describe disputes and not engage in them however is something that I agree on. Tutelary (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment ""Radical feminist" is a term that doesn't exist outside of a loaded vocabulary of opprobium". Really? Someone had better inform the authors of the Radical feminism WP page about this. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment And I've just changed it to "some radical feminists", complete with wikilink and "citation needed" that it is actually radical feminists involved after someone else tagged "some people" as weasel words. Then I come here and think "oh great... we have come full circle" 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

After thinking a bit, we need to find who actually first complained about the now-infamous shirt and either describe those people as whatever they call themselves or give credit where credit is due and name them explicitly. Anyone here know a source for who actually started this mess? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Link in Christina H. Sommers' tweet is broken (cut off)

So instead of showing http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vatican-topless-femen-protestors-simulate-sex-crucifixes-while-decrying-pope-francis-1474898 it is only http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vatican-topless-femen-protestors-s I am just pointing this out, I have some but not a lot of experience volunteering for wikis or encyclopedias, so I am refraining from editing it. Jeroen52 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I have solved it. Helester (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Added references to reaction

I've added references to the reaction, to the abuse suffered by one journalist http://jezebel.com/woman-gets-death-threats-for-tweeting-about-disliking-a-1658337612 and to comments from the astronomy writer Phil Plait. I also added citations to more articles in support of Dr Taylor. I cleaned up the first paragraph which included unattributed text from a Boris Johnson column and changed the description of Dr Taylor to planetary scientist as this is more fitting than astrophysicist. Also changed medium of apology from television to webcast and added reference to the sexy but not easy comment.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked a few of your edits. Blogs and Twitter are not rs for Wikipedia, and please don't synthesize the sources. I saw you added something along the lines 'some people have been sent death threats'. When I went to the article, the headline was 'Woman sent death threats' and didn't mention any one besides her. So I've tweaked that. But otherwise, I'd say some good edits. Oh but where did you get 'planetary scientist'? Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I used planetary scientist as it describes someone who works on Solar System science as this work is often a blend of astrophysics and geology/minerology etc. Scientist is a perfectly good term. I included the wrong reference for the "sexy but not easy" statement, this is correct http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt and made a mistake saying it refered to the comment (it refers to the spacecraft). I added the ASA statement to the bit about reaction to critics but you are correct that the Jezebel article only refers to one person. I have seen more abusive posts but can't indicate that without original research. I do worry that the article lacks context as to why people were complaining (sexist culture in academia, underrepresentation of women) but it is difficult to find a source that isn't an opinion piece. Also I'm uncomfortable with the use of "abuse" in the last paragraph as this may be considered PoV.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and correct what you see are mistakes and I'll intervene if I believe that you are out of policy or guideline. WP:BOLD is a thing too. Also, seeing The Guardian source, could you quote where you are seeing this 'sexy but easy' thing? I'm simply not seeing it. Tutelary (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Urgh, too many windows open, wrong Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-science-are-annoyed-at-rosetta-mission-scientists-clothing 7th or 8th para. Given this is an opinion piece I'm uncertain how to quote it.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, made a few more minor edits to remove POV stuff and add the Guardian article (minus a direct reference to the lagnuage used). The article seems in better shape now and hopefully is less POV so I'll leave it for now. I am a tad uncomfortable with the use of the term "death threat" as the tweets do not imply the commenter is going to take action but as they are described as that in the source I will leave it for now (I don't want to use scare quotes).--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit of the "Public Apology" and the "Backlash" are extremely in favour of the radical feminist point of view. Not only was the "forced to apologise" edited out (although most references treat it that way), the sentence "Many of those who complained accepted his apology" implys Dr Taylor has made something that he needs to apologise for, a radical feminist point of view most people do not agree with, and that some people are still rightful offended. Also it is now missing that the big public Backlash was caused by Dr Taylor's apology and the anger about the bullying he has received. While the initial bullies get the first sentence of the Backlash piece pointing out how they were bullied for bulling a scientist this just doesn't make any sense. Helester (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I have seen someone removed the "forced apology" because they assumed it was a choice, most sources view this apology as a reaction to the outrage that happened before and that flooded his tweet (explaining his apology as "he was bullied into apologising"), seeing as Dr Taylor can not make a public statement before the ESA approves of this it is likely the ESA encouraged him to make the apology or at least allowed him to in case he really though his shirt was inappropriate. Either way presenting it as a choice is an admission of guilt while most people do not agree that his shirt was sexist or that there was something he had to apologise for. Helester (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed "abuse" of Taylor to "firestorm". This is what CNN a neutral website referred to it as. The only other non-opinion column I can find that refers to his treatment is the Daily Mail and Guardian using the word "furore". The person who made this edit equated one tweet using an mild insult to the hundreds of highly abusive tweets the critics of Taylor have recieved.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Worried my previous edit ignores the views of people who thought this was "abuse". Hence I have added a reference to the Boris Johnson column indicating that some saw the critics behaviour as abuse.--Rotatingastrothing (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Rotatingastrothing As far as I know Dr Taylor received far more abuse than his bullys (according to the sources it was more than just noticeable, some described it as a "tweetstorn" of abuse). It is simply wrong to say that Dr Taylor got "one tweet using an mild insult" there was a lot of abuse going on which every source agrees, the problem is that twitter is incredibly fast and most posts towards Dr Taylor are friendly now. So we should trust the sources that all describe it as a lot of abuse. Also his bullys got abused for bullying someone and insulting someone. I dont know if his critics got abused at all as far as I know they were engaged in debates about their opinions. The abuse that Dr Taylor received was, not debatable as "justified". Criticism towards him is debatable and seen by some as justified but the abuse is not. Getting angry with people that abused and insulted others is justified and a normal reaction to injustice, until certain levels of course(death threads are ofc not and I am glad it didn't get this far). Treating the abuse Dr Taylor received equal to the abuse his abusers received is not logical or fair. Helester (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You make numerous reference to the people who criticised Taylor as "bullies" and his treatment as "abuse". Please cite a news site (not an opinion column) which states that this was abuse. I have cited three news sources (one right-wing, one neutral, one left-wing) which use furore or firestorm. These sites do not use the word abuse, this is a term used in opinion columns. The definition of abuse in this case is "cruel, violent, or unfair treatment of someone". I do not see how it is possible to use this word without it appearing that Wikipedia endorses that critics were cruel, violent, or unfair. That some commentators saw the treatment as cruel, violent, or unfair is undoubted and the article should reflect that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion --Rotatingastrothing (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I might have been not clear enough. I said we can not treat the way Dr Taylor was treated the same way Rose Eveleth was treated. (Because of the reasons I stated above) If we say she got abused we need to find a stronger word than that to describe what happened to Dr Taylor if we say Dr Taylor was "criticised" then we need to find a weaker word than that for Rose Eveleth. But right now we say she got abused and Dr Taylor got criticised and insulted, this is misleading and unfair. I think its a good desription in the last sentence "some saw as abuse" I think we can use something similar for Rose Eveleth. Helester (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah OK, that's fair. I've changed abuse to "tweets asking her to kill herself" as that is accurate and doesn't editorialise. I agree that calling these death threats is not accurate (as one editor changed them to) and I think if we use abuse anywhere it should be presented as an opinion. I think it is also fair as this shows the content of some (two) of the comments she recieved paired with the content of the insult she directed against Taylor. Note anpther editor has just removed the content of her insult as it is from Twitter which is not an RS. --Rotatingastrothing (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your edit was really good, I added a few sources and changed the plural but I think we managed to get a pretty accurate description of what happened :) Well done everyone!Helester (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the number of money raised by the indegogo project after three days to the correct amount 17000$ also added amount of backers for transparency and sourced it. Further I have changed the section stating that rampant sexism was pointed out to it being a claim rather than fact as per WP:Point of view further contemplating removing mention of "death threats" there as there are no reliable sources (Jezebel is not a reliable source and furthermore non of the tweets in the article contain any threats) DuusieDos (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Sourcing and Original Research

Please don't post WP:OR on the article page. Please try to base the article on secondary sources, and use as few primary sources as possible, as per WP:SRC 09I500 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In order to avoid over tagging (there were 3 and it's only a short article), I have put the multiple issues tag on the page. Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems 09I500 (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates to highlight and clarify the issues in the article. 09I500 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability?

I know this has been all over the internet and in a few newspapers, but in the long term, does this incident really rise to the level of WP:NOTABLE, or is it just a very small footnote for the Philae (spacecraft) mission? I'm on the fence about this, so I thought I'd open up a discussion. I will say that I'd hate to see everything people lose their shit over on Twitter on a given week becomes the subject of a Wikipedia article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article doesn't meet the standards of WP:NOTABLE however it should be a footnote on Matt Taylor not Philae (spacecraft) DuusieDos (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I seem to keep wanting to take the opposing side. I argue that we should wait for further developments. More facts = better article. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is ephemeral nonsense, and I'm hoping someone will launch the WP:AFD. I haven't fully investigated the sources, but WP:NOTNEWS springs to mind. Wikipedia does not erect a memorial to every bad-day-at-the-office, no matter how many tweets ensued. Technically, we might replace this page with a redirect to Matt Taylor (scientist) but I don't see why such an attack URL should exist. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this article rises to the standards of notability, also WP:NOTNEWS as stated above. I agree that it should be proposed for WP:AFD. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to meet WP:Notability criteria. Right now the article is not good enough in my opinion, but remember that the notability criteria do not apply to the content of the article. So your argument that the "article is ephemeral nonsense" cannot be a reason to delete the article for WP:Notability 09I500 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Now nominated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really agree. I think this article falls under WP:NOT and therefore doesn't meet the standards of WP:Notability Twitter wars like this start too often and disappear too quickly to merit pages. If anything, the need for downsizing of Internet vigilantism proves this. DuusieDos (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

New Changes

The article was so good yesterday now someone AGAIN changed the fact that Rose called Dr Taylor an asshole into "tweet asking her to kill herself as a result of her criticism of Dr Taylor's shirt" This is POV. (How do you know she was NOT told to kill herself because of the insult? How do you know it was because of her criticism?) We had an almost perfect article yesterday now its feminist propaganda again. "some saw it as abuse" when Dr Taylor received personal insults including "Jerk" and "Asshole" and someone tweeted that they want him fired, yet Rose got "abused" with those tweets (again POV). This is simply not true. And about the deletion: It was in most news and an important Backlash against third wave feminism and against sexism. A lot of people pointed out that this would not have happened to a woman no matter how unprofessionally she would have dressed this IS a sexism issue. Tl:DR The article is now way more biased than it was yesterday, and there is so much wrong now that I think we need to reset all the changes, since people even deleted C.H.S tweets about the Vatican that represent the opinion of a lot of people. Helester (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I brought back yesterdays version. If I deleted any useful changes I am sorry. The amount of useful references that were deleted by others as well the biased interpretation of why Rose got the tweet telling her to kill herself were really contra productive. Helester (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the references are of encyclopedic value. Removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:SRC and WP:IRS 09I500 (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues and preparing for merge

The emerging consensus on the AfD seems to be that this should be merged and the most logical place to merge it is Matt Taylor, which is very definitely a biography of a living person. This is a contentious topic and is very likely something he would prefer to put behind him. We must be extra careful about WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCES. Watch for loaded language. We need to have every statement accurately and reliably sourced, every "i" dotted, and every "t" crossed. Let's do this. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

While a number of the cited sources read like opinion pieces, only one is clearly so marked at the source. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Going round and round on who initially took offense

In the Background section, in describing who first took offense, we've gone through a number of phrases:

• "radical feminists also called female chauvinists or "Social Justice Warriors"" from an early version with serious WP:NPOV and plagiarism problems
• "some women" from the first version edited for NPOV; this version also named Rose Eveleth, but did not cite a source for that detail
• "some people (mostly women)" after a user pointed out that some men also objected in this version
• "radical feminists" from this version
• "some people" after another NPOV edit
• side note: the mention of Rose Eveleth was removed in this version
• "some feminists" from this version
• "many women in science" from this version
• "some people" when that was reverted
• side note: this is where I found the article in NPOV disputes and began editing
• "some people" was flagged as "weaselly"
• a source clearly naming Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth as initially objecting to the shirt was added although I did not examine it at the time
• "radical feminists" after I had seen it mentioned on the talk page and decided to put it in place of the weasel words and link the article to stimulate discussion on the talk page
• "commentators" instead of finding a source for "radical feminists" (probably an improvement, but less clear)
• "feminists" in this version
• "Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth" citing NPR (my doing)
• "a number of commentators" in this version

I'm putting the specific statement back and citing the source. Let's discuss why we shouldn't have that here. The NPR article specifically states that "criticism quickly spread, particularly after science writers Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth tweeted about it". The others mentioned in Feltman's article are tweets from the next day, fitting under "others expressed similar views". Please discuss if you disagree. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The previous wording stated Taylor's choice of clothing became a subject of controversy after drawing criticism from Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth which is not supported by the source, as it implies that those two people were the first/only ones to object to it. I don't mind us mentioning those two specifically, but the criticism was obviously far more widespread than just them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've crawled through all the diffs once already and I'm not actually sure how we ended up with that wording. NPR states "criticism quickly spread, particularly after science writers Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth tweeted about it". I had understood NPR's phrasing to mean that those were the first to object who had any notability. In particular, several sources have Rose Eveleth's tweet, complete with datestamp of 12 November, so she does have a verifiable claim to priority over most of the crowd. I had previously kept "science writers" out of the page out of an abundance of caution regarding plagiarism, since quotes would look funny and the names alone are minimal basic facts. As for Ed Yong, I recall having seen a specific mention of his tweet, but I don't recall where. On a side note, thanks for finally coming to the talk page and I apologize if I may have come across as uncivil. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Science writers" is helpful because a) it particularly describes those writers' focus and b) it provides context for their commentary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that it would not be helpful, only that duplicating the entire phrase without a quotation was a little too close to plagiarism for my comfort. You're supporting its use well, and in any case, if it does cross the line, I didn't add it. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd still like to get rid of a number of commentators entirely, because having that in the article is almost begging for a {{who}} dropped nearby. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[Helester's comment beginning This was I think the 7th backlash against ... was originally here.]

What? I'm the person pushing to remove a number of commentators because it is WP:VAGUE and weaselly and having it in the article leads to your argument. You are correct that we do not refer to people as "racist" because that violates WP:TERRORIST. This is also why I am uneasy about having which she described as "sexist" in the article and I have removed similar wording once already. I am not removing it again right now because I would rather have a thriving discussion here on the talk page than an edit war in the article. You mention another page, but do not link it, so I do not know what you're talking about. In any case, that is a different article that needs to have its own WP:NPOV dispute. Please keep the discussion here about Shirtstorm. Also, thanks for coming back to the talk page. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible unbalanced treatment of initial and backlash criticism

Edit: moved This was I think the 7th backlash against radical feminists this year and you try to cover this up, by simply being "some commentators" as if someone who says that certain ethnicity's are worse than others would not be called a "racist" instead of "some commentator". You know exactly who those people are because of the views the express but ok, lets act like it were just some random people its not like Wikipedia has become highly biased and infested by SJWs its not like the Wikipedia page openly calls "white people" a social construct and "black people" an ethnicity, oh wait it does. This page was good and truthful a certain point but since people pushed a certain political point its completely worthless now. Maybe ask yourself why you did this and if this is what Wikipedia should be. Helester (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Rose got a full line in the text about the criticism she got even mentioning the "kill yourself" tweet as if this was in any way relevant to the story at all while all the insults towards Dr. Taylor have been removed twice (I have posted them and cited them) he was, according to Wikipedia, just criticised. Nobody discusses the "shirstorm" that is connected with this one (where feminists wear shirts made by oppressed women), nobody states that the critics/radical feminists were mostly from the USA where nudity is a taboo while the people in Europe deal completely different with this and that this might be a cultural reaction. Instead we give Rose a whole line about how she was told to kill herself and do not give Dr Taylor half a line about the people who called him "scum" "jerk" "asshole" and who wanted him fired. And you act like you are not pushing a POV. Helester (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/feminist-t-shirt-sweatshop_n_6094722.html This was what I was talking about the shirtstorm that often got connected to the one we were talking about. There is just a lot missing and there is a pretty obvious agenda pushed when people delete what happened to Dr. Taylor several times to make it look less bad than waht happened to R.E although this is not how most sources reflect it, in fact she is so unimportant that just one site mentions the criticism she got I think (Jezebel? correct me if I am wrong). Helester (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

While that scandal is certainly amusing, this article is about a specific Twitter incident. Are you saying that the same hashtag was used for that? Back on topic, if you check the article, we currently have two sources supporting the criticism of Rose Eveleth, although I would be in favor of dropping Jezebel from the article entirely and just relying on the BBC. Rose Eveleth is quite important, since most sources cite her as the first to complain about Taylor's wearing the shirt. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph in the Background section currently describes criticism of Taylor, including a lengthy quote "because it sends a clear message to the women around you -- their bodies are really just there for display" from an item posted to a WP:NEWSBLOG. Arguably the "kill yourself" tweet is relevant, since it does describe part of the backlash, although it may simply be an example of the GIFT. Your references, at least that I could find¹²³⁴ with a history search, are links to tweets. WP:TWITTER is a self-published, WP:PRIMARY source and its use on Wikipedia is limited due to its dubious reliability. Do any secondary sources describe the abusive criticism of Taylor you claim? We need those before we can mention it in the article. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You are kidding me right now? We do not use primary sources because they are less reliable (???) than what the media says? We do not write the truth if we find it we only repeat popular media opinions? I can only include the insults if a big enough media company has talked about it first? And you dare to compare the quote towards M.T which was constructive criticism with the "kill yourself?" This is so obviously written to make it look less bad what happened to M.T than what happened to R.E. Honestly I am shocked we could have used the "ass hole" quote towards taylor and the "educate yourself" quote towards R.E but I guess that would not be sensationalist enough, oh yeah tahts why the media didnt do it aswell. This is an encyclopaedia, not a children's birthday. Helester (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue of differing cultural norms, particularly the difference in attitudes towards nudity may be an important and overlooked topic for this article. Do any outside sources mention it? While it is interesting that many of the sources criticizing Taylor seem to be US-based and nearly all of his defenders European, mentioning that in the article is WP:SYNTHESIS unless we have a reliable outside source for it. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, it seems I was not clear enough. Your first comment (This was I think the 7th backlash against ...) belongs in the thread above, where you originally had it, since it is about the issue being discussed in that thread. I was asking you to move your second comment (Rose got a full line in the text ...) to here, although I referred to it by timestamp rather than the text. I apologize for causing confusion. Please delete this comment (OK, it seems I was not clear ...) after moving your first comment back to its original location. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Just read it again, now its only criticism that M.T has received although most sources talk about "abuse" a "tweetstorm" a "firestorm" etc. A very well picked quote was added to make M.T critics look reasonable, the "kill yourself" quote was left with R.E.. I just wonder if you are aware of the extreme level of dishonesty and POV you push here or if you really think this somehow accurately describes what happened? This quote was not picked because it describes the majority of tweets and I think you know it. But why am I even trying. You have your reasons to push this insulting and misogynistic narrative and I am simply mentally unable to understand why, you are the majority in this article so you win. Helester (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Which source do we use for the text of Taylor's apology?

I just noticed that Taylor's public apology has been uncited all this time. We have a number of sources to support it, which should we use? I'll open the discussion and see what other editors say before I propose one. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous nits and proposed minor edits

Please use the {{cite web}} and related templates for references, since they not only generate nice citations that fit in with the rest of the article, but place metadata into the HTML that might be useful for someone. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"busty" is informal language. Perhaps we should drop it and simply say colourful shirt depicting scantily-clad cartoon women? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; edit applied.  Done 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The source given for Rose Eveleth expressed appreciation for Taylor's apology. doesn't mention so in text. It may be in the video, but it would be nice to have a textual source for this to ease verification. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Look toward the bottom of the article — it quotes (via embedding) Eveleth's tweet which says Glad to hear @mggtTaylor recognized his mistake & apologized (live stream isn't working for me) and we can both move along with our lives. This turns the primary source into a (usable) secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Quoting via embedding is problematic for various technical reasons, including a risk of link rot at the page we list as a source and the possibility that some (stricter than default) browser security policies may preclude its display. We should not depend on such a quote. It would be much better to have a source that actually quotes that in its own HTML. I believe that we have such sources for at least Rose Eveleth's initial complaint. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have found such a source and added it to the article.  Done 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we shorten Taylor's choice of clothing became a subject of controversy after drawing criticism to Taylor's choice of clothing drew criticism, or even Taylor's shirt drew criticism? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That depends whether the criticism was of his shirt per se, or of him wearing the shirt at the time of making a public statement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. Do we have any sources that say one way or the other? Do we agree on removing became a subject of controversy? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In the Background section we now mention science writers Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth, yet in Backlash we say Rose Eveleth, an online journalist, received criticism as well as a tweet .... I propose changing the latter to Rose Eveleth received criticism including a tweet ... 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose changing science writers Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth to science journalists Rose Eveleth and Ed Yong to avoid having seven words in a row directly taken from a source. The current text just feels like plagiarism to me. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)