![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
@ Another Believer: I wonder if there is a better title for this article- "phrase" just seems like to vague of a disambiguation. #MeToo would be an option, but there are technical limitations to having hashtags in an article title. How about Me too (social media campaign)? AdA&D 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Hgrosser: Seems you saved your edit after I moved it to Me too (hashtag). Sorry for the edit conflict! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Do
MeToo,
MeToo (hashtag), or
Me Too (hashtag) make better titles? I'm leaning towards the first, given
YesAllWomen. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
02:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's too soon for an own article about this tag. Maybe it's only here for a couple of weeks. Until at least there's significant cover about the the tag, not just people using it. In this case it could deserve a spin-off article. It's also closely related to Weinstein's case.-- Hofhof ( talk) 01:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
There is clearly not consensus to merge this article. Can an admin close this discussion? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Any opposition to removing the notability tag? There is already a merge tag, and so far editors think the topic is noteworthy enough to include in the encyclopedia in some way, but not necessarily as a standalone article. Seems like an unnecessary tag at this point, or perhaps there is another one that can encourage expansion without questioning notability? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there any illustration that could be added to this article? YesAllWomen has one... --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I added an image of Alyssa Milano, for now, but I am open to other illustration options. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Another Believer: We could use the screenshot from Charles Clymer, if it is below Threshold of originality. Milano used the screenshot in her Tweet. [4] -- 212.95.5.208 ( talk) 09:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(Just noting changes made to this section, not by me. Thanks.) --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
For example, Black Lives Matter started as a hash tag, but the article is about the movement that sprung up around it. It should be something similar in this article too. I don't think much would have to be changed besides the first line of the lede. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 07:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Time Magazine referred to #MeToo as a movement when #MeToo was mentioned as a candidate for Person of the Year 2017. http://time.com/5045719/time-person-of-the-year-2017-shortlist/?xid=homepage 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 20:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
user:Another Believer, you flabbergast me. the only thing björk is "clearly referring" to is "a danish [film] director". WP:BLP states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that[...] is a conjectural interpretation of a source." are you sure you disagree?
(factual mentions of "notable people who have been accused" can be found here & here.) k kisses 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the commentary about Lars von Trier makes the list of #MeToo participants look untidy. The reference links will help readers know that Bjork was referencing him anyway.
So, currently the article does not mention
Lars von Trier in any capacity. Is this what we think is best? ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
22:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
All of this is on Bjork's and von Trier's Wikipedia pages anyway. Mentioning this conjecture only clutter's this page, which is about a wider social issue than just two individuals.
I get that you want to white knight for Bjork, but again Bjork herself has not actually named von Trier. If it'll assuage you, add von Trier to the Aftermath list but please make note that Bjork hasn't actually named him yet. All those other sources you listed are just speculating.
If you read the sources that you posted, you'll see that their language usually involves "it is believed" or "supposedly". Again, Bjork has not actually flat out said, "It was Lars von Trier."
Not sure why you didn't just add his name to the Aftermath section, but I did it so that you'd let this go.
@ Sandstein: Do you care to contribute to this discussion since you mentioned mention of Lars von Trier? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Should only notable people (aka people with Wikipedia articles) be mentioned here? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
...which is why all of the names are followed by reference links. Moreover, no assumption of guilt is made. (However, many of these people have either apologized or been fired.)
@DocStrange, I feel that your changes to several of the individuals' professions should be changed back to "filmmaker". I know it's rather generic, but those people mostly do more than just one type of job. For example, Ben Affleck may be primarily known as an actor, but most of his film awards are for writing, producing, and directing.
RE: Peyton Manning -- not sure if we should include him. The allegations are from the same person who accused him a long time ago before #MeToo. The "new" accusations are essentially about the two of them arguing semantics (more of a legal matter than anything else). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.227.232 ( talk) 23:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, no assumption of guilt is made." No, this list is clearly guilt by association, lumping people accused of inappropriate behavior with accused rapists. Also, some of these people have denied these allegations while others have admitted them. Falling Gravity 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
So should we removed all people from the list who do not have their own Wikipedia articles? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
No, while some of them don't have Wikipedia articles, they're still public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is really backwards thinking. Instead of deleting these names, which FallingGravity just did, the better course of action would be to create pages for these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Btw, some of these people do have Wikipedia pages, just not on the English site (for example, Gijs van Dam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@ FallingGravity: Looks like your work to remove the names of non-notable people, which I agreed with, was reverted... --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
They're not "non-notable", they just don't have Wikipedia pages created for them yet. These are all public figures who have been mentioned in articles published by reputable news organizations.
A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:
I'm aware of that, and again, just because a person doesn't have a Wikipedia page about them doesn't make them "non-notable". On a related note, I created a page for Tarana Burke, who actually created the term "Me Too", but it's been left in "draft" status. Does this mean that Burke is "non-notable"? Of course not.
@ Doc Strange: Seems we need some additional opinions here. Do you have any thoughts re: inclusion of names of people without their own Wikipedia articles? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Doc Strange: Btw, in his zeal to be "Wikipedia-complete", FallingGravity also deleted Alex Calder. The fact that he was actually signed to a music label (as opposed to an amateur musician waiting to be discovered) was enough to make him notable, as you mentioned. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
What is your obsession with pervasive destruction of content??? 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel it would be relevant/covering the bases to include a picture of Tarana Burke in the "Criticism" section.
(Also, maybe someone should start a page for her?)
Well, I just submitted a draft page for approval.
What are the criteria for inclusion in the "Aftermath" section? Allegations will continue to be made until the end of time, so what's the cut off, or how do we keep this section specific to "me too" in order for the article to stay on topic? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a good question, so maybe end of the year, 31 December 2017? Btw, someone just removed the sentences about Lars Von Trier.
I know what you mean, but look at what Uma Thurman just said -- she'll talk about sexual harassment/assault when she's ready to talk about it. This implies that she has either stories or accusations to share, and her statement was prompted by the #MeToo movement. It's obvious that many people are still working up their courage after being inspired by #MeToo, but it takes time for people to gather their thoughts, calm their emotions, and prepare lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Delete all figures unrelated to the hashtag. Keep the rest. Ꞷ umbolo 07:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This aftermath section is getting ridiculous. This should ONLY be tied to figures who were outed in the #metoo campaign. It's hard to fathom how someone like Val Kilmer, accused of pushing someone too hard in an audition (which everyone who was there says wasn't true anyways) being linked in with rapists. Donmike10 ( talk) 22:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Donmike10: This is per the linked article -- "Former actress Caitlin O’Heaney broke her NDA to speak out about what she says was a violent attack by Val Kilmer while she was auditioning for the Pamela Courson role in Oliver Stone’s “The Doors.” According to BuzzFeed News, O’Heaney, who starred in the 1982 ABC series “Tales of the Gold Monkey,” found the courage to talk about being allegedly assaulted by Kilmer after seeing so many actresses and former assistants come forward about their experiences with studio head Harvey Weinstein. “Women have come together, saying, ‘We’re not going to be fucked by you,’” O’Heaney said." Btw, being punched in the face is not the same as being pushed.
Re: Donald Trump -- Please stop adding him to the list until there is a new allegation post-October 2017. Although many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, that's due to the current news cycle and does not mean that they are actually connected! The allegations were made against him prior to Weinstein/#MeToo. Furthermore, there's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to allegations against Trump. If this is your hobby, make updates there, not here.
You obviously have reading comprehension problems: "The allegations were made against him prior to Weinstein/#MeToo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: Donald Trump -- look at the page dedicated solely to Trump's sexual misconduct allegations. The most-recent allegations were made in 2016. There's nothing new! Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:: That's specious reasoning. By your logic, we should delete the Harvey Weinstein allegations from this page, since there is "already a page for that" and the Weinstein allegations have been around for years. What part of "the sources themselves have drawn the connection between #MeToo/the Weinstein furore and the Trump allegations of sexual assault against 16 different women, including asking him about it at the White House on October 16, 2017" is it that you're having trouble understanding? Just because YOU idiosyncratically think it "isn't related" is of no interest to anyone who isn't you. Every one of the sources I cited specifically drew the connection, and yet you keep sitting here bloviating about how "it isn't related, there are no new allegations" as if anyone possibly gives a shit about your personal opinion about what relates to what. The sources say it relates; this is governing, not whatever moronic personal views help you to sleep at night. Show me a source supporting your opinion that the two events "have no relation" and I might actually care what you say have to say. "Reading comprehension" my ass; YOU, my friend, are the one who was unable to divine from the sources I provided you that EVERY single one connected the recent subpoena of Trump and the questioning at the White House IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS TO THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS. Your view that this is "just a coincidence" is of no possible interest to anyone who isn't you.
Peacebroker (
talk)
23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC) account is a blocked sock of
Kingshowman
Actually, Harvey Weinstein is not listed in the Aftermath section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 00:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
:: Touche. But I'd imagine he is in the article. Point being, you believe that the Trump subponea of October 15, 2017 had "no connection" to the Weinstein allegations. That's nice. Tell your family at Thanksgiving. The sources say otherwise. You haven't dealt with that point, and you effectively admitted it: "many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, that's due to the current news cycle and does not mean that they are actually connected." We aren't interested in your views on what is connected to what. You admit the sources have stated the subpoena is connected to the Weinstein alelgations. That's more than sufficient to include him in the article.
Peacebroker (
talk)
00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) account is a blocked sock of
Kingshowman
People still ask Roman Polanski and Samantha Geimer about him raping her. This doesn't make it a new allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 00:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Btw, in case you're unaware, subpoenas are frequently fishing expeditions. The side serving the subpoena doesn't exactly know what evidence exists, and it's not unusual for subpoenas to result in no new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 00:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Over at the "Weinstein effect" article, I've proposed that the "Background" section be merged into the "Aftermath" section here. We could even re-name the "Aftermath" section as the "Weinstein effect" section. Otherwise, that article is fairly pointless. Even people who visit/edit there regularly are dubious of its utility, and outside of Wikipedia, I've never heard of anyone referring to these events as the "Weinstein effect" (not even by news media). 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 23:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hong Kong track/field athlete Lui Lai-Yiu just posted a #MeToo reference on her Facebook page. Again, the aftereffects of #MeToo are still percolating throughout the world. https://www.facebook.com/laiyiului/ https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20171130/57522123 I wish some of the people following/editing this article would realize that it takes time for individuals to muster the courage to gather their thoughts about awful events and to articulate those thoughts.03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete the section and consider converting some sourced examples to prose and move into "International response" section. The list is currently indiscriminate, unreferenced and potentially incomplete. Ꞷ umbolo 08:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Origin" section, unlink EL from "article" and "piece" and put a reference at the end of that line for this URL. Ꞷ umbolo 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add following person to aftermath:
Anonymous complaints arrived for Bart De Pauw, explicitly mentioning the #MeToo movement as the reason why the accusers decided to make the complaints. Bart De Pauw is a televisionmaker, public figure and actor. The national television shut down cooperation with him after 30 years of making television. StevenRoose ( talk) 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Nowhere does this article state that it cuts off at October 15th, but since the tweets (and non-Twitter responses on fb) keep rolling in a month later you will need to address this. E.g. I was looking for the response by Diana Nyad and couldn't find it. Jane ( talk) 08:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The phrase, "Shortly after the allegations against Harvey Weinstein broke, the following public figures have also been accused of inappropriate behavior (including but not limited to harassment or assault)" can be read to imply that the listed figures were not previously accused of "inappropriate behaviour". Never mind the fact that "inappropriate behaviour" could include a lot of things that are of no relevance to the Me Too hashtag (e.g. throwing bottles in a river), the list includes several individuals that were previously accused of relevant transgressions, such as Bill O'Reilly (2004 and 2016), "Larry" Nassar (2016), and Roman Polanski (1977, 2010, and at various times during 2017). On this basis, I would urge editors to either diligently check that only individuals are listed to whom the statement unambiguously applies, or, if there is clear and direct relevance but the statement is not literally true, to clarify appropriately. Samsara 12:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I just added a quote and reference pertaining to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's public statements regarding sexual misconduct and the "Me Too" movement. She gives credit to "Me Too" for encouraging and mobilizing people to speak up against such behavior. This happened on November 16. It's clear that "Me Too" is still a motivating factor in people coming forward when they had previously thought that no one would listen to them. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the many hashtags mentioned in the "List of local alternative hashtags" section could be converted to a floating quote box, or similar? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There is disagreement about who should be included in the "Aftermath" section. The following subsections are for discussing the appropriateness of mentioning people without Wikipedia articles of their own. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Stephen Blackwell? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, come on: [6] 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Alex Gilady? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Patricia Glaser? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention David Guillod? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Vincent Ingenito? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Andrew Kramer? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Knight Landesman? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Tyler Malka? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Jason Mojica? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Eric Monier? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Ian Prior? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Adam Venit? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Tony Villani? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Matt Zimmerman? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have twice removed a section about the MeToo Center website: "In November 2017 MeToo.center became the central database for people to add and edit #MeToo stories about predators. The website is Wiki based to promote democratic contributions and edits." User:FallingGravity has also removed it. I have also removed it from the Alyssa Milano article.
Wikis and crowdsourced websites are never RS here. If this persists, we'll have to blacklist their website AND block those who keep restoring it. Pinging User:2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B2 User:2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:96 User:98.173.108.220 -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
jammerbirdi here.
I'm very sorry to report that I've run afoul of the rule regarding making edits on material that relates directly to oneself. I've done that and I'd like to apologize to everyone who assiduously maintains the information on this #metoo Wikipedia entry.
One reason I wasn't aware that I'd made that error is that my initial edit here was allowed and stayed in the record for at least the last two weeks. It was regarding a reader on the New York Times writing under the username 'jammer' (me) in the comments section of the Lena Dunham piece suggesting that women who had been the victim of sexual predation in the entertainment industry might come forward and simply say, "Me, too." (I provided a link to that article but one must search through the comments because as far as I know the Times doesn't allow for linking directly to a user's comment.)
Here is most of I wrote there on Oct. 10, the day after Lena Dunham's op-ed was published, five days after the Weinstein scandal broke, and at least four days prior to Alyssa Milano's tweet suggesting the use of the now very famous hashtag.
jammer los angeles October 10, 2017
Taking this to Harvey's extremes, focusing only on a hugely powerful guy engaged in completely outrageous behavior, would be a case of not seeing the forest for one massive rotting tree stump.
Men control the short and long-term career opportunities of thousands of the most desirable women on earth in what must be the most glamorous and lucrative career environment in human history, as has been the case for almost a century.
Are we really going to be concerned only about the most salacious and outrageous stories? About the one or a half dozen men who take things too far?
Because that has not been the story of Hollywood in this area and it shouldn't be the general public's take away this time. Know this. Behind the literal and metaphorical gates of those studios is a world beyond the reach of laws protecting women against all forms of workplace sexual misconduct and the result is as predictable as human nature itself.
Here's what really needs to happen now. Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, "Me, too."
The reason I'm unsure of exactly how many days difference there was between when I submitted my comment, even when it was published by the Times, and Alyssa Milano's tweet, is the Times often doesn't post comments until hours (days even) after they've been submitted, and they don't offer a time stamp either.
Anyway, unaware that I'd broken a rule I decided last night to add my real name to the edit I'd made. The decision to even do that was agonizing. But anyway, I think that might be two rules broken as I don't handily have a way of verifying that the name I posted, my own, and 'jammer' are one and the same person. I really don't know how that might be easily be resolved either and for most of the last few weeks I've actually been fairly happy that I didn't use my real name on the Times' comment.
What I think is important always is that any piece of history is presented with all the information and accuracy as is possible. So that is the reason behind the two edits I've made here in the last few weeks. There are holes in this origin story as it is presented here and some unconnected dots. I'm as aware of that as I am due to the fact that I am one of those dots. But I see now that it isn't my responsibility or even my right to add content to the record here. I understand that and accept it. But the edit regarding the Dunham comment that stood for the last couple weeks IS verifiable and I'm assuming that it was verified if it was allowed to stand given even the scrutiny and devotion to this entry by those of you who manage and oversee the information here.
So I would hope that in that devotion to as much correct information as can be added to the knowledge base around anything warranting a Wikipedia page that the initial edit I'd made regarding my comment to the Dunham piece would be restored. It's easily verifiable, if you don't mind scrolling through 800 or so subsequent comments.
As I said to the editor who removed my edits, in the long run, what's important is that there is now a movement that allows women to add their voice and experiences to the record. But Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia, is about spot-on accurate information and unvarnished detail. As a person who has been watching this entire global phenomenon for the last month with a weird mix of awe, satisfaction, and also, at times, abject terror (because I don't know what no-good-deed-goes-unpunished horror story might come from any of this) I nevertheless feel somewhat expectant and even responsible that the information on this Wikipedia page to be accurate and true.
But I am done. Best of luck to you all in searching for and providing the most accurate and verifiable information and chronology on this very important subject. The facts are out there. I hope they all end up here.
Again, I meant no disrespect and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding (on my part.)
Thank you,
donald barnat
Jammerbirdi ( talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
first, responding to 70.112.229.80 What I tried to do was make sure that the Wikipedia entry for #metoo contained accurate and complete information when as it applies to the origin section. you have accused me of spamming, self-aggrandizement, self-serving, and having delusions of grandeur. I'm not trying to take credit for starting the #metoo movement. That's not ultimately for me to judge. I was only trying to place into the record that 5 days prior to A. Milano's tweet calling for the use of 'me too' that someone had already done that on the New York Times website in the comments section of the Dunham piece. That someone posted under the username 'jammer'. Those are facts. They are verifiable by any of you if you are interested in establishing the most accurate information and having that information be a part of Wikipedia's entry on #metoo. Whether or not I am the person who posted that idea under the name 'jammer' is, as I admit earlier in this conversation, something I can't offer some easy proof of. But I realize now that, as a person who has possibly played a role in this, I shouldn't be here participating in the editing of an online encyclopedia.
I pointed out to you yesterday that Alyssa Milano had herself tweeted 24 hours after her hashtag call/tweet that she had JUST learned of another earlier me too movement. That tweet or its implications is not in the record here. It's not coming from me. I only passed it on to you. Your response was this.
"It's been well-documented that Burke used the term "Me Too" long before Milano, regardless of whether or not Milano had heard about it. The world doesn't revolve around Milano's cognizance."
This last sentence indicates, IMO, that you have an agenda to minimize even Milano's role in starting the me too movement as it exists at this moment. But Milano's own tweet indicates that she'd never heard of Burke's earlier movement. So what is happening here is that an anonymous editor who has an bias for a certain narrative is responding very negatively toward any new or unnoticed information that runs counter to that agenda. That's not my problem. That's Wikipedia's problem.
BullRangifer. Thanks for your response. I've run afoul of more rules than I can keep track of. Again, I'm sorry about that. As a person who is at this point struggling to process what has happened in the last month, it's obvious that, as a newbie to Wikipedia and its time-tested conventions for accumulating accurate information, coming here and just attempting to edit the entry with more complete information was not the right course for me to take. At this point I'll repeat that I only hope that you all here maintain a fervent desire for the truth and the most accurate and complete telling of this important now historic moment and that experienced seasoned Wikipedia editors take what I've said and run down the facts and present them here where they most certainly belong.
Thank you all again,
ETA: RE this: Someone would have to be able to prove that Alyssa Milano actually saw his "comment" and said, "What a great idea!" I think not.[[Special:Contributions/70.112.229.80
You completely dismissed Milano's own tweet that indicates that she only learned of Tarana Burke's me too movement the day after she'd called for the use of the hashtag, characterizing your thought on that as "the world doesn't revolve around Milano's cognizance." The writer Joan Didion talks about this in her books as the tendency to ignore facts and that which is observable in favor of a narrative that is more satisfactory or one that simply 'plays better.' Yesterday you deleted from this entry information that was not only verifiable by the following of a link and scrolling through a NYTimes' comments section, but information that would have had to have ALREADY been verified by editors here for it to have been allowed to remain in the entry for something like two weeks.
One thing I don't blame you for is meeting all of this with profound skepticism. Although you really could lose the scornful presentation for something more inquisitive and mature. If you think the notion that I might actually be a person who played such a key role in the origin of the me too movement is ridiculous, I would suggest that you cannot imagine how ridiculous the idea sounds to me coming from of my own mouth. I've always been politically outspoken and I've used the Internet for almost 20 years as an outlet for my political opinions and rants. I started, actually, on the old New York Times forums in an epic thread called The Lewinsky Scandal.
The idea that women who had been preyed upon by men in the entertainment industry should come forward and say so by simply articulating the words, 'me, too' was and would have naturally been for me, at that time, just another day online offering up my passionate opinion on something. I've commented probably a dozen times in various NYTimes articles on this subject since the Weinstein story broke and much more extensively in another online venue.
One last bit of information or guidance to anyone who may try to piece this all together. You have to remember that the Lena Dunham piece was only, I think, maybe the fourth article on the Weinstein business since the story broke. Everyone was reading those piece and the comments sections on the New York Times are, for any devoted consumer of the Times' product, must see reading. For so many people with even a tangential interest in Hollywood or the entertainment industry, this story was beyond enthralling and every word written on the subject at the newspaper of record was being widely consumed including the comments sections.
I suggested three things that directly correlate with Alyssa Milano's hashtag/call tweet and her explanation for why she tweeted and I did it five days before her hashtag me too tweet. I suggested that women who had been victimized should come forward. So did she. I suggested a way, a unique way, for them to do that. I said they should come forward by simply saying 'me, too.' Alyssa Milano also suggested that they come forward by using the words 'me too' but in the form of a hashtag. I'm 60 years old. I missed the significant of the hashtag as a conduit for spreading this sort of an idea and so she certainly deserves full credit for that idea and for using her fame to create to launch this movement to where it is now. But lastly, she says her motivation for doing this was so that we could all get an idea of just how many women had been the victim of sexual predation. In the last paragraph of my comment on the Dunham piece I write that I don't know how many women would answer such a 'me, too' call but I knew that hundreds of thousands could. So once again, five days before Alyssa Milano tweeted her #metoo call, I had posted all of those thoughts in the form of a comment on the New York Times website.
Again. I don't belong here. I'm not one of you editors and I realize now that it is in no way my role to effect what ends up in this entry. I felt a need to make sure this information was complete and accurate but I'm adjusting to all of this and one part of that adjustment is that a lot of what is in the public realm, what is being said, how it is characterized, so much of that is out of my control. Not easy for me because, if you haven't guessed by now, I'm a control freak.
Good luck.
Jammerbirdi ( talk) 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, just a thought here, but many of the accused men in the aftermath section are linked to articles that make zero reference to the "Me Too" movement or hashtag. If this is to continue, then literally every sexual harassment allegation will be attributed to Me Too going forward. Previously I proposed that only individuals who were named with accusations explicitly stated as being inspired by the Me Too movement should be listed in the Aftermath section. Of course, this is an unparalleled social moment, and so the vast number of public accusations is going to be linked to "me too" in spirit. But "in spirit" isn't what Wikipedia is built on, and for us to add someone to the list, when the accuser does not make the connection explicit, is a clear case of WP:OR. Furthermore, citing a journalist or op-ed column's statement that an accusation was tied to MeToo is not valid unless the journalist is reporting that the accuser stated so. This isn't to belittle the effects of this social movement, but we need to maintain standards. To that end, I propose we remove names that are not explicitly stated in their references to be connected to metoo, and create a non-bulleted aftermath paragraph outlining the widespread, but removed, impact of the hashtag, which can draw from any number of the many, many quality news articles reporting on it right now. Thoughts? -- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"It is unreasonable that my professional colleagues should be somehow associated with such allegations. In the circumstances, I have decided to step aside in my ambassadorial role as president of AACTA effective immediately and until these issues have been resolved."
Being the sole victim of a perpetrator does not make that individual's plight any less real/valid than if a perpetrator had 100 victims. I think you need a reality check. As Scarpy mentioned, Wikipedia's policies acknowledge that reality requires flexibility, and the spirit of what we're doing is more impt than the "rules". 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 03:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I proposed merging the Weinstein effect article to this one because it's really the same thing as we're doing with the MeToo effect section anyway. No one has voice any objections over on that article's Talk page. Let's make it happen. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot of handwringing over "accuracy", but guess what? If you do any amount of digging, a good 80%-plus of the people listed have been Suspended, Fired, or Arrested. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In a WP:BOLD edit, I've removed the list, because it has the strong potential to be WP:BLP non-compliant, and because we don't necessarily have sourcing that the #MeToo movement led to every accusation on there. I'd like to see if there's consensus to leave it off or not. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the Guardian, "The anti-harassment #MeToo movement was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year." The Time announcement refers to the "Silence Breakers", but ties it into the MeToo hashtag. I think this should be included, but I was reverted. I should have discussed before restoring - sorry. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
secondary sources that present the same material are preferred., if a secondary source says #MeToo but the primary source says Silence Breakers then they are not the same material. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
— WP:WPNOTRS
The Guardian mis-reported this, so it's unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.72.34 ( talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This story has been corrected to show that Time magazine’s Person of the Year is the silence breakers. The #MeToo movement is a part of that group." Falling Gravity 19:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If a news source gets something wrong, yes, in that instance, it is unreliable. Would you cite NY Times articles written by Jayson Blair? 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan, please read the actual Time Magazine article regarding the 2017 People of the Year citation. They are saluting EVERYONE who has been brave enough to stand up against sexual misconduct and gender discrimination. For example, the article mentions the Plaza Hotel Plaintiffs several times and includes a picture of some of them. They filed a lawsuit against their employer in August, two months before MeToo. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is to remove the list of public figures who have had sexual harassment allegations levelled against them per WP:BLP. The removal was done here.
Editors who opposed inclusion noted that the list presented without additional context a list of people who have had very different allegations levelled against them which they considered to be a BLP violation.
Other editors recommended trimming the list to include only people who were specifically cited by an independent reliable source as being accused by the MeToo hashtag. This did not achieve consensus. But there is no prejudice against discussing this further.
Should the list of public figures who have had sexual harassment allegations levelled against them be removed? Kb.au ( talk) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The list of public figures included in this article has no clear connection to the #MeToo campaign beyond connecting two related issues, and is potentially in breach of BLP guidelines. Should we Remove this list entirely, Edit it to include only those accusations that are especially notable, Move it to a more relevant page, or Include it as is? Kb.au ( talk) 18:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete all figures unrelated to the hashtag. Keep the rest.Additionally, since we're removing content, remove "List of local alternative hashtags". Ꞷ umbolo 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Weinstein effect as a category for this article. I began organizing all relevant articles under this category and this is the only one I can't edit on. Belchicks ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There's already a separate article, which I've proposed to merge to this article. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 20:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Note.- Booksnarky ( talk) 06:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The main article appears to be 2017 United States political sexual scandals, the name has problems, propose moving to 2017 sexual harassment scandals now. Then the various similar articles need to be integrated into that main article, and Ive put up some move and merge tags for that purpose. - Booksnarky ( talk) 05:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with making that the main article is not every perpetrator or accused is a politician. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Since I can't edit the article directly, does someone mind removing the empty "Notes" section? I don't think this is a controversial request. Thanks! ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
23:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Primefac: Do you also mind changing the first "See also" link to 2017 Westminster sexual scandals? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add in international response section: "#metoo“ was named [word of the year] 2017 in the German speaking part of Switzerland, in the French speaking part "harcèlement" (harassment) was awarded the same title. Source: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/semantics_swiss-words-of-the-year---metoo-and-harassment/43726766 2A02:8109:8C80:3DC8:D55B:1DFD:AAA:FF25 ( talk) 23:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest expanding the criticism heading? There has in fact been multiple articles noting problems with this movement, including, but not limited to: - Claims being published on social media implicating specific individuals without an official police case being opened, allowing no legit platform for the alleged perpetrator to state his side. - Media biased to alleged victims vs alleged perpetrators. - The scope of metoo movement being too broad.
FashionFreak ( talk) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)FashionFreak
I agree, big criticism from some sources especially for the scope being too wide. Another valid point I've seen is that it can be abused...instead of being a platform for women of sexual abuse to speak up, it can be a platform to attack a man and sully his reputation without having to take the normal route via police. Seen some cases in one country I visited recently. AspiringCheetah ( talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
Are we allowed to add the information to the page? Or do you have to wait for an editor to do it? I'm new to wikipedia, but I've seen on some of the other pages that editors exercise almost ownership-like editing on pages...even legit information is removed without discussion... AspiringCheetah ( talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
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)
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)
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)
References
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Lafayette Baguette ( talk) 00:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
@ Another Believer: I wonder if there is a better title for this article- "phrase" just seems like to vague of a disambiguation. #MeToo would be an option, but there are technical limitations to having hashtags in an article title. How about Me too (social media campaign)? AdA&D 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Hgrosser: Seems you saved your edit after I moved it to Me too (hashtag). Sorry for the edit conflict! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Do
MeToo,
MeToo (hashtag), or
Me Too (hashtag) make better titles? I'm leaning towards the first, given
YesAllWomen. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
02:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's too soon for an own article about this tag. Maybe it's only here for a couple of weeks. Until at least there's significant cover about the the tag, not just people using it. In this case it could deserve a spin-off article. It's also closely related to Weinstein's case.-- Hofhof ( talk) 01:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
There is clearly not consensus to merge this article. Can an admin close this discussion? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Any opposition to removing the notability tag? There is already a merge tag, and so far editors think the topic is noteworthy enough to include in the encyclopedia in some way, but not necessarily as a standalone article. Seems like an unnecessary tag at this point, or perhaps there is another one that can encourage expansion without questioning notability? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there any illustration that could be added to this article? YesAllWomen has one... --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I added an image of Alyssa Milano, for now, but I am open to other illustration options. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Another Believer: We could use the screenshot from Charles Clymer, if it is below Threshold of originality. Milano used the screenshot in her Tweet. [4] -- 212.95.5.208 ( talk) 09:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(Just noting changes made to this section, not by me. Thanks.) --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
For example, Black Lives Matter started as a hash tag, but the article is about the movement that sprung up around it. It should be something similar in this article too. I don't think much would have to be changed besides the first line of the lede. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 07:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Time Magazine referred to #MeToo as a movement when #MeToo was mentioned as a candidate for Person of the Year 2017. http://time.com/5045719/time-person-of-the-year-2017-shortlist/?xid=homepage 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 20:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
user:Another Believer, you flabbergast me. the only thing björk is "clearly referring" to is "a danish [film] director". WP:BLP states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that[...] is a conjectural interpretation of a source." are you sure you disagree?
(factual mentions of "notable people who have been accused" can be found here & here.) k kisses 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the commentary about Lars von Trier makes the list of #MeToo participants look untidy. The reference links will help readers know that Bjork was referencing him anyway.
So, currently the article does not mention
Lars von Trier in any capacity. Is this what we think is best? ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
22:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
All of this is on Bjork's and von Trier's Wikipedia pages anyway. Mentioning this conjecture only clutter's this page, which is about a wider social issue than just two individuals.
I get that you want to white knight for Bjork, but again Bjork herself has not actually named von Trier. If it'll assuage you, add von Trier to the Aftermath list but please make note that Bjork hasn't actually named him yet. All those other sources you listed are just speculating.
If you read the sources that you posted, you'll see that their language usually involves "it is believed" or "supposedly". Again, Bjork has not actually flat out said, "It was Lars von Trier."
Not sure why you didn't just add his name to the Aftermath section, but I did it so that you'd let this go.
@ Sandstein: Do you care to contribute to this discussion since you mentioned mention of Lars von Trier? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Should only notable people (aka people with Wikipedia articles) be mentioned here? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
...which is why all of the names are followed by reference links. Moreover, no assumption of guilt is made. (However, many of these people have either apologized or been fired.)
@DocStrange, I feel that your changes to several of the individuals' professions should be changed back to "filmmaker". I know it's rather generic, but those people mostly do more than just one type of job. For example, Ben Affleck may be primarily known as an actor, but most of his film awards are for writing, producing, and directing.
RE: Peyton Manning -- not sure if we should include him. The allegations are from the same person who accused him a long time ago before #MeToo. The "new" accusations are essentially about the two of them arguing semantics (more of a legal matter than anything else). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.227.232 ( talk) 23:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, no assumption of guilt is made." No, this list is clearly guilt by association, lumping people accused of inappropriate behavior with accused rapists. Also, some of these people have denied these allegations while others have admitted them. Falling Gravity 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
So should we removed all people from the list who do not have their own Wikipedia articles? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
No, while some of them don't have Wikipedia articles, they're still public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is really backwards thinking. Instead of deleting these names, which FallingGravity just did, the better course of action would be to create pages for these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Btw, some of these people do have Wikipedia pages, just not on the English site (for example, Gijs van Dam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@ FallingGravity: Looks like your work to remove the names of non-notable people, which I agreed with, was reverted... --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
They're not "non-notable", they just don't have Wikipedia pages created for them yet. These are all public figures who have been mentioned in articles published by reputable news organizations.
A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:
I'm aware of that, and again, just because a person doesn't have a Wikipedia page about them doesn't make them "non-notable". On a related note, I created a page for Tarana Burke, who actually created the term "Me Too", but it's been left in "draft" status. Does this mean that Burke is "non-notable"? Of course not.
@ Doc Strange: Seems we need some additional opinions here. Do you have any thoughts re: inclusion of names of people without their own Wikipedia articles? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Doc Strange: Btw, in his zeal to be "Wikipedia-complete", FallingGravity also deleted Alex Calder. The fact that he was actually signed to a music label (as opposed to an amateur musician waiting to be discovered) was enough to make him notable, as you mentioned. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
What is your obsession with pervasive destruction of content??? 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel it would be relevant/covering the bases to include a picture of Tarana Burke in the "Criticism" section.
(Also, maybe someone should start a page for her?)
Well, I just submitted a draft page for approval.
What are the criteria for inclusion in the "Aftermath" section? Allegations will continue to be made until the end of time, so what's the cut off, or how do we keep this section specific to "me too" in order for the article to stay on topic? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a good question, so maybe end of the year, 31 December 2017? Btw, someone just removed the sentences about Lars Von Trier.
I know what you mean, but look at what Uma Thurman just said -- she'll talk about sexual harassment/assault when she's ready to talk about it. This implies that she has either stories or accusations to share, and her statement was prompted by the #MeToo movement. It's obvious that many people are still working up their courage after being inspired by #MeToo, but it takes time for people to gather their thoughts, calm their emotions, and prepare lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 21:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Delete all figures unrelated to the hashtag. Keep the rest. Ꞷ umbolo 07:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This aftermath section is getting ridiculous. This should ONLY be tied to figures who were outed in the #metoo campaign. It's hard to fathom how someone like Val Kilmer, accused of pushing someone too hard in an audition (which everyone who was there says wasn't true anyways) being linked in with rapists. Donmike10 ( talk) 22:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Donmike10: This is per the linked article -- "Former actress Caitlin O’Heaney broke her NDA to speak out about what she says was a violent attack by Val Kilmer while she was auditioning for the Pamela Courson role in Oliver Stone’s “The Doors.” According to BuzzFeed News, O’Heaney, who starred in the 1982 ABC series “Tales of the Gold Monkey,” found the courage to talk about being allegedly assaulted by Kilmer after seeing so many actresses and former assistants come forward about their experiences with studio head Harvey Weinstein. “Women have come together, saying, ‘We’re not going to be fucked by you,’” O’Heaney said." Btw, being punched in the face is not the same as being pushed.
Re: Donald Trump -- Please stop adding him to the list until there is a new allegation post-October 2017. Although many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, that's due to the current news cycle and does not mean that they are actually connected! The allegations were made against him prior to Weinstein/#MeToo. Furthermore, there's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to allegations against Trump. If this is your hobby, make updates there, not here.
You obviously have reading comprehension problems: "The allegations were made against him prior to Weinstein/#MeToo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: Donald Trump -- look at the page dedicated solely to Trump's sexual misconduct allegations. The most-recent allegations were made in 2016. There's nothing new! Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:: That's specious reasoning. By your logic, we should delete the Harvey Weinstein allegations from this page, since there is "already a page for that" and the Weinstein allegations have been around for years. What part of "the sources themselves have drawn the connection between #MeToo/the Weinstein furore and the Trump allegations of sexual assault against 16 different women, including asking him about it at the White House on October 16, 2017" is it that you're having trouble understanding? Just because YOU idiosyncratically think it "isn't related" is of no interest to anyone who isn't you. Every one of the sources I cited specifically drew the connection, and yet you keep sitting here bloviating about how "it isn't related, there are no new allegations" as if anyone possibly gives a shit about your personal opinion about what relates to what. The sources say it relates; this is governing, not whatever moronic personal views help you to sleep at night. Show me a source supporting your opinion that the two events "have no relation" and I might actually care what you say have to say. "Reading comprehension" my ass; YOU, my friend, are the one who was unable to divine from the sources I provided you that EVERY single one connected the recent subpoena of Trump and the questioning at the White House IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS TO THE WEINSTEIN ALLEGATIONS. Your view that this is "just a coincidence" is of no possible interest to anyone who isn't you.
Peacebroker (
talk)
23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC) account is a blocked sock of
Kingshowman
Actually, Harvey Weinstein is not listed in the Aftermath section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 00:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
:: Touche. But I'd imagine he is in the article. Point being, you believe that the Trump subponea of October 15, 2017 had "no connection" to the Weinstein allegations. That's nice. Tell your family at Thanksgiving. The sources say otherwise. You haven't dealt with that point, and you effectively admitted it: "many news articles about him mention Weinstein/#MeToo, that's due to the current news cycle and does not mean that they are actually connected." We aren't interested in your views on what is connected to what. You admit the sources have stated the subpoena is connected to the Weinstein alelgations. That's more than sufficient to include him in the article.
Peacebroker (
talk)
00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) account is a blocked sock of
Kingshowman
People still ask Roman Polanski and Samantha Geimer about him raping her. This doesn't make it a new allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 00:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Btw, in case you're unaware, subpoenas are frequently fishing expeditions. The side serving the subpoena doesn't exactly know what evidence exists, and it's not unusual for subpoenas to result in no new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 00:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Over at the "Weinstein effect" article, I've proposed that the "Background" section be merged into the "Aftermath" section here. We could even re-name the "Aftermath" section as the "Weinstein effect" section. Otherwise, that article is fairly pointless. Even people who visit/edit there regularly are dubious of its utility, and outside of Wikipedia, I've never heard of anyone referring to these events as the "Weinstein effect" (not even by news media). 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 23:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hong Kong track/field athlete Lui Lai-Yiu just posted a #MeToo reference on her Facebook page. Again, the aftereffects of #MeToo are still percolating throughout the world. https://www.facebook.com/laiyiului/ https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20171130/57522123 I wish some of the people following/editing this article would realize that it takes time for individuals to muster the courage to gather their thoughts about awful events and to articulate those thoughts.03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete the section and consider converting some sourced examples to prose and move into "International response" section. The list is currently indiscriminate, unreferenced and potentially incomplete. Ꞷ umbolo 08:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Origin" section, unlink EL from "article" and "piece" and put a reference at the end of that line for this URL. Ꞷ umbolo 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add following person to aftermath:
Anonymous complaints arrived for Bart De Pauw, explicitly mentioning the #MeToo movement as the reason why the accusers decided to make the complaints. Bart De Pauw is a televisionmaker, public figure and actor. The national television shut down cooperation with him after 30 years of making television. StevenRoose ( talk) 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Nowhere does this article state that it cuts off at October 15th, but since the tweets (and non-Twitter responses on fb) keep rolling in a month later you will need to address this. E.g. I was looking for the response by Diana Nyad and couldn't find it. Jane ( talk) 08:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The phrase, "Shortly after the allegations against Harvey Weinstein broke, the following public figures have also been accused of inappropriate behavior (including but not limited to harassment or assault)" can be read to imply that the listed figures were not previously accused of "inappropriate behaviour". Never mind the fact that "inappropriate behaviour" could include a lot of things that are of no relevance to the Me Too hashtag (e.g. throwing bottles in a river), the list includes several individuals that were previously accused of relevant transgressions, such as Bill O'Reilly (2004 and 2016), "Larry" Nassar (2016), and Roman Polanski (1977, 2010, and at various times during 2017). On this basis, I would urge editors to either diligently check that only individuals are listed to whom the statement unambiguously applies, or, if there is clear and direct relevance but the statement is not literally true, to clarify appropriately. Samsara 12:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I just added a quote and reference pertaining to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's public statements regarding sexual misconduct and the "Me Too" movement. She gives credit to "Me Too" for encouraging and mobilizing people to speak up against such behavior. This happened on November 16. It's clear that "Me Too" is still a motivating factor in people coming forward when they had previously thought that no one would listen to them. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the many hashtags mentioned in the "List of local alternative hashtags" section could be converted to a floating quote box, or similar? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There is disagreement about who should be included in the "Aftermath" section. The following subsections are for discussing the appropriateness of mentioning people without Wikipedia articles of their own. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Stephen Blackwell? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, come on: [6] 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Alex Gilady? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Patricia Glaser? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention David Guillod? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Vincent Ingenito? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Andrew Kramer? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Knight Landesman? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Tyler Malka? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Jason Mojica? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Eric Monier? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Ian Prior? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Adam Venit? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Tony Villani? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Should this article mention Matt Zimmerman? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have twice removed a section about the MeToo Center website: "In November 2017 MeToo.center became the central database for people to add and edit #MeToo stories about predators. The website is Wiki based to promote democratic contributions and edits." User:FallingGravity has also removed it. I have also removed it from the Alyssa Milano article.
Wikis and crowdsourced websites are never RS here. If this persists, we'll have to blacklist their website AND block those who keep restoring it. Pinging User:2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B2 User:2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:96 User:98.173.108.220 -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
jammerbirdi here.
I'm very sorry to report that I've run afoul of the rule regarding making edits on material that relates directly to oneself. I've done that and I'd like to apologize to everyone who assiduously maintains the information on this #metoo Wikipedia entry.
One reason I wasn't aware that I'd made that error is that my initial edit here was allowed and stayed in the record for at least the last two weeks. It was regarding a reader on the New York Times writing under the username 'jammer' (me) in the comments section of the Lena Dunham piece suggesting that women who had been the victim of sexual predation in the entertainment industry might come forward and simply say, "Me, too." (I provided a link to that article but one must search through the comments because as far as I know the Times doesn't allow for linking directly to a user's comment.)
Here is most of I wrote there on Oct. 10, the day after Lena Dunham's op-ed was published, five days after the Weinstein scandal broke, and at least four days prior to Alyssa Milano's tweet suggesting the use of the now very famous hashtag.
jammer los angeles October 10, 2017
Taking this to Harvey's extremes, focusing only on a hugely powerful guy engaged in completely outrageous behavior, would be a case of not seeing the forest for one massive rotting tree stump.
Men control the short and long-term career opportunities of thousands of the most desirable women on earth in what must be the most glamorous and lucrative career environment in human history, as has been the case for almost a century.
Are we really going to be concerned only about the most salacious and outrageous stories? About the one or a half dozen men who take things too far?
Because that has not been the story of Hollywood in this area and it shouldn't be the general public's take away this time. Know this. Behind the literal and metaphorical gates of those studios is a world beyond the reach of laws protecting women against all forms of workplace sexual misconduct and the result is as predictable as human nature itself.
Here's what really needs to happen now. Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, "Me, too."
The reason I'm unsure of exactly how many days difference there was between when I submitted my comment, even when it was published by the Times, and Alyssa Milano's tweet, is the Times often doesn't post comments until hours (days even) after they've been submitted, and they don't offer a time stamp either.
Anyway, unaware that I'd broken a rule I decided last night to add my real name to the edit I'd made. The decision to even do that was agonizing. But anyway, I think that might be two rules broken as I don't handily have a way of verifying that the name I posted, my own, and 'jammer' are one and the same person. I really don't know how that might be easily be resolved either and for most of the last few weeks I've actually been fairly happy that I didn't use my real name on the Times' comment.
What I think is important always is that any piece of history is presented with all the information and accuracy as is possible. So that is the reason behind the two edits I've made here in the last few weeks. There are holes in this origin story as it is presented here and some unconnected dots. I'm as aware of that as I am due to the fact that I am one of those dots. But I see now that it isn't my responsibility or even my right to add content to the record here. I understand that and accept it. But the edit regarding the Dunham comment that stood for the last couple weeks IS verifiable and I'm assuming that it was verified if it was allowed to stand given even the scrutiny and devotion to this entry by those of you who manage and oversee the information here.
So I would hope that in that devotion to as much correct information as can be added to the knowledge base around anything warranting a Wikipedia page that the initial edit I'd made regarding my comment to the Dunham piece would be restored. It's easily verifiable, if you don't mind scrolling through 800 or so subsequent comments.
As I said to the editor who removed my edits, in the long run, what's important is that there is now a movement that allows women to add their voice and experiences to the record. But Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia, is about spot-on accurate information and unvarnished detail. As a person who has been watching this entire global phenomenon for the last month with a weird mix of awe, satisfaction, and also, at times, abject terror (because I don't know what no-good-deed-goes-unpunished horror story might come from any of this) I nevertheless feel somewhat expectant and even responsible that the information on this Wikipedia page to be accurate and true.
But I am done. Best of luck to you all in searching for and providing the most accurate and verifiable information and chronology on this very important subject. The facts are out there. I hope they all end up here.
Again, I meant no disrespect and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding (on my part.)
Thank you,
donald barnat
Jammerbirdi ( talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
first, responding to 70.112.229.80 What I tried to do was make sure that the Wikipedia entry for #metoo contained accurate and complete information when as it applies to the origin section. you have accused me of spamming, self-aggrandizement, self-serving, and having delusions of grandeur. I'm not trying to take credit for starting the #metoo movement. That's not ultimately for me to judge. I was only trying to place into the record that 5 days prior to A. Milano's tweet calling for the use of 'me too' that someone had already done that on the New York Times website in the comments section of the Dunham piece. That someone posted under the username 'jammer'. Those are facts. They are verifiable by any of you if you are interested in establishing the most accurate information and having that information be a part of Wikipedia's entry on #metoo. Whether or not I am the person who posted that idea under the name 'jammer' is, as I admit earlier in this conversation, something I can't offer some easy proof of. But I realize now that, as a person who has possibly played a role in this, I shouldn't be here participating in the editing of an online encyclopedia.
I pointed out to you yesterday that Alyssa Milano had herself tweeted 24 hours after her hashtag call/tweet that she had JUST learned of another earlier me too movement. That tweet or its implications is not in the record here. It's not coming from me. I only passed it on to you. Your response was this.
"It's been well-documented that Burke used the term "Me Too" long before Milano, regardless of whether or not Milano had heard about it. The world doesn't revolve around Milano's cognizance."
This last sentence indicates, IMO, that you have an agenda to minimize even Milano's role in starting the me too movement as it exists at this moment. But Milano's own tweet indicates that she'd never heard of Burke's earlier movement. So what is happening here is that an anonymous editor who has an bias for a certain narrative is responding very negatively toward any new or unnoticed information that runs counter to that agenda. That's not my problem. That's Wikipedia's problem.
BullRangifer. Thanks for your response. I've run afoul of more rules than I can keep track of. Again, I'm sorry about that. As a person who is at this point struggling to process what has happened in the last month, it's obvious that, as a newbie to Wikipedia and its time-tested conventions for accumulating accurate information, coming here and just attempting to edit the entry with more complete information was not the right course for me to take. At this point I'll repeat that I only hope that you all here maintain a fervent desire for the truth and the most accurate and complete telling of this important now historic moment and that experienced seasoned Wikipedia editors take what I've said and run down the facts and present them here where they most certainly belong.
Thank you all again,
ETA: RE this: Someone would have to be able to prove that Alyssa Milano actually saw his "comment" and said, "What a great idea!" I think not.[[Special:Contributions/70.112.229.80
You completely dismissed Milano's own tweet that indicates that she only learned of Tarana Burke's me too movement the day after she'd called for the use of the hashtag, characterizing your thought on that as "the world doesn't revolve around Milano's cognizance." The writer Joan Didion talks about this in her books as the tendency to ignore facts and that which is observable in favor of a narrative that is more satisfactory or one that simply 'plays better.' Yesterday you deleted from this entry information that was not only verifiable by the following of a link and scrolling through a NYTimes' comments section, but information that would have had to have ALREADY been verified by editors here for it to have been allowed to remain in the entry for something like two weeks.
One thing I don't blame you for is meeting all of this with profound skepticism. Although you really could lose the scornful presentation for something more inquisitive and mature. If you think the notion that I might actually be a person who played such a key role in the origin of the me too movement is ridiculous, I would suggest that you cannot imagine how ridiculous the idea sounds to me coming from of my own mouth. I've always been politically outspoken and I've used the Internet for almost 20 years as an outlet for my political opinions and rants. I started, actually, on the old New York Times forums in an epic thread called The Lewinsky Scandal.
The idea that women who had been preyed upon by men in the entertainment industry should come forward and say so by simply articulating the words, 'me, too' was and would have naturally been for me, at that time, just another day online offering up my passionate opinion on something. I've commented probably a dozen times in various NYTimes articles on this subject since the Weinstein story broke and much more extensively in another online venue.
One last bit of information or guidance to anyone who may try to piece this all together. You have to remember that the Lena Dunham piece was only, I think, maybe the fourth article on the Weinstein business since the story broke. Everyone was reading those piece and the comments sections on the New York Times are, for any devoted consumer of the Times' product, must see reading. For so many people with even a tangential interest in Hollywood or the entertainment industry, this story was beyond enthralling and every word written on the subject at the newspaper of record was being widely consumed including the comments sections.
I suggested three things that directly correlate with Alyssa Milano's hashtag/call tweet and her explanation for why she tweeted and I did it five days before her hashtag me too tweet. I suggested that women who had been victimized should come forward. So did she. I suggested a way, a unique way, for them to do that. I said they should come forward by simply saying 'me, too.' Alyssa Milano also suggested that they come forward by using the words 'me too' but in the form of a hashtag. I'm 60 years old. I missed the significant of the hashtag as a conduit for spreading this sort of an idea and so she certainly deserves full credit for that idea and for using her fame to create to launch this movement to where it is now. But lastly, she says her motivation for doing this was so that we could all get an idea of just how many women had been the victim of sexual predation. In the last paragraph of my comment on the Dunham piece I write that I don't know how many women would answer such a 'me, too' call but I knew that hundreds of thousands could. So once again, five days before Alyssa Milano tweeted her #metoo call, I had posted all of those thoughts in the form of a comment on the New York Times website.
Again. I don't belong here. I'm not one of you editors and I realize now that it is in no way my role to effect what ends up in this entry. I felt a need to make sure this information was complete and accurate but I'm adjusting to all of this and one part of that adjustment is that a lot of what is in the public realm, what is being said, how it is characterized, so much of that is out of my control. Not easy for me because, if you haven't guessed by now, I'm a control freak.
Good luck.
Jammerbirdi ( talk) 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, just a thought here, but many of the accused men in the aftermath section are linked to articles that make zero reference to the "Me Too" movement or hashtag. If this is to continue, then literally every sexual harassment allegation will be attributed to Me Too going forward. Previously I proposed that only individuals who were named with accusations explicitly stated as being inspired by the Me Too movement should be listed in the Aftermath section. Of course, this is an unparalleled social moment, and so the vast number of public accusations is going to be linked to "me too" in spirit. But "in spirit" isn't what Wikipedia is built on, and for us to add someone to the list, when the accuser does not make the connection explicit, is a clear case of WP:OR. Furthermore, citing a journalist or op-ed column's statement that an accusation was tied to MeToo is not valid unless the journalist is reporting that the accuser stated so. This isn't to belittle the effects of this social movement, but we need to maintain standards. To that end, I propose we remove names that are not explicitly stated in their references to be connected to metoo, and create a non-bulleted aftermath paragraph outlining the widespread, but removed, impact of the hashtag, which can draw from any number of the many, many quality news articles reporting on it right now. Thoughts? -- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"It is unreasonable that my professional colleagues should be somehow associated with such allegations. In the circumstances, I have decided to step aside in my ambassadorial role as president of AACTA effective immediately and until these issues have been resolved."
Being the sole victim of a perpetrator does not make that individual's plight any less real/valid than if a perpetrator had 100 victims. I think you need a reality check. As Scarpy mentioned, Wikipedia's policies acknowledge that reality requires flexibility, and the spirit of what we're doing is more impt than the "rules". 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 03:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I proposed merging the Weinstein effect article to this one because it's really the same thing as we're doing with the MeToo effect section anyway. No one has voice any objections over on that article's Talk page. Let's make it happen. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot of handwringing over "accuracy", but guess what? If you do any amount of digging, a good 80%-plus of the people listed have been Suspended, Fired, or Arrested. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In a WP:BOLD edit, I've removed the list, because it has the strong potential to be WP:BLP non-compliant, and because we don't necessarily have sourcing that the #MeToo movement led to every accusation on there. I'd like to see if there's consensus to leave it off or not. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the Guardian, "The anti-harassment #MeToo movement was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year." The Time announcement refers to the "Silence Breakers", but ties it into the MeToo hashtag. I think this should be included, but I was reverted. I should have discussed before restoring - sorry. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
secondary sources that present the same material are preferred., if a secondary source says #MeToo but the primary source says Silence Breakers then they are not the same material. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
— WP:WPNOTRS
The Guardian mis-reported this, so it's unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.72.34 ( talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This story has been corrected to show that Time magazine’s Person of the Year is the silence breakers. The #MeToo movement is a part of that group." Falling Gravity 19:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If a news source gets something wrong, yes, in that instance, it is unreliable. Would you cite NY Times articles written by Jayson Blair? 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan, please read the actual Time Magazine article regarding the 2017 People of the Year citation. They are saluting EVERYONE who has been brave enough to stand up against sexual misconduct and gender discrimination. For example, the article mentions the Plaza Hotel Plaintiffs several times and includes a picture of some of them. They filed a lawsuit against their employer in August, two months before MeToo. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is to remove the list of public figures who have had sexual harassment allegations levelled against them per WP:BLP. The removal was done here.
Editors who opposed inclusion noted that the list presented without additional context a list of people who have had very different allegations levelled against them which they considered to be a BLP violation.
Other editors recommended trimming the list to include only people who were specifically cited by an independent reliable source as being accused by the MeToo hashtag. This did not achieve consensus. But there is no prejudice against discussing this further.
Should the list of public figures who have had sexual harassment allegations levelled against them be removed? Kb.au ( talk) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The list of public figures included in this article has no clear connection to the #MeToo campaign beyond connecting two related issues, and is potentially in breach of BLP guidelines. Should we Remove this list entirely, Edit it to include only those accusations that are especially notable, Move it to a more relevant page, or Include it as is? Kb.au ( talk) 18:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete all figures unrelated to the hashtag. Keep the rest.Additionally, since we're removing content, remove "List of local alternative hashtags". Ꞷ umbolo 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Weinstein effect as a category for this article. I began organizing all relevant articles under this category and this is the only one I can't edit on. Belchicks ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There's already a separate article, which I've proposed to merge to this article. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 20:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Note.- Booksnarky ( talk) 06:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The main article appears to be 2017 United States political sexual scandals, the name has problems, propose moving to 2017 sexual harassment scandals now. Then the various similar articles need to be integrated into that main article, and Ive put up some move and merge tags for that purpose. - Booksnarky ( talk) 05:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with making that the main article is not every perpetrator or accused is a politician. 70.112.229.80 ( talk) 19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Since I can't edit the article directly, does someone mind removing the empty "Notes" section? I don't think this is a controversial request. Thanks! ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
23:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Primefac: Do you also mind changing the first "See also" link to 2017 Westminster sexual scandals? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Me Too (hashtag) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add in international response section: "#metoo“ was named [word of the year] 2017 in the German speaking part of Switzerland, in the French speaking part "harcèlement" (harassment) was awarded the same title. Source: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/semantics_swiss-words-of-the-year---metoo-and-harassment/43726766 2A02:8109:8C80:3DC8:D55B:1DFD:AAA:FF25 ( talk) 23:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest expanding the criticism heading? There has in fact been multiple articles noting problems with this movement, including, but not limited to: - Claims being published on social media implicating specific individuals without an official police case being opened, allowing no legit platform for the alleged perpetrator to state his side. - Media biased to alleged victims vs alleged perpetrators. - The scope of metoo movement being too broad.
FashionFreak ( talk) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)FashionFreak
I agree, big criticism from some sources especially for the scope being too wide. Another valid point I've seen is that it can be abused...instead of being a platform for women of sexual abuse to speak up, it can be a platform to attack a man and sully his reputation without having to take the normal route via police. Seen some cases in one country I visited recently. AspiringCheetah ( talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
Are we allowed to add the information to the page? Or do you have to wait for an editor to do it? I'm new to wikipedia, but I've seen on some of the other pages that editors exercise almost ownership-like editing on pages...even legit information is removed without discussion... AspiringCheetah ( talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
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)
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)
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)
References
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Lafayette Baguette ( talk) 00:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)