Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jealousy

"or to express jealousy in a socially acceptable manner.[12]" I don't believe the Ringrose citation is appropriate. If "jealousy" is to be raised as a motive, in such a way that insinuates it is fact, an actual academic study should be cited, not the unsupported opinion of one academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.10.70 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed issues tags

I just added a bunch of scholarly citations to help make this article more encyclopedic. As a result, I was bold and removed the issues tags, since I think the issues were addressed. Please feel free to add them back if needed. Phoenixred (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger?

For the record, I am against any merger, for the time being. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Heavily POV

I'm not going to tag the article because I would prefer to engage the drive-by writer to improve it. You use blogs for sources (as opposed to scholarly or even popular news articles) for references. Blogs aren't allowed. You insert your own diatribes ("Instead of seeing one another as potential friends..."; "Instead of identifying with each other when they have things in common...") that taint the entire article. Since you invested so much time in writing this (I Googled the sentences and no apparent copyvio apparent from my limited effort) you might want to invest some time in finding sources for very simple ideas, in order to bolster the article. Also, "girls" is misogynistic terminology for "women". You can't introduce brand new concepts like "Girl Hate" and expect to define them here - see no original research. If improvements aren't made then this article could end up deleted. --David Shankbone 05:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Also, girls is misogynistic terminology for women." It's due to statements like this that some Feminists are embarrassed by male Feminists. There’s a difference between sincere, blatant misogyny and petty-minded assumptions.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This statement is an example of how the concept of misogyny has become so rife with male-hating that even a male[sic] Feminist[sic] gets sshamed by a feminist who does not identify their own gender but assumes we will know that she is a girl. QuintBy (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article definitely needs some refinement and especially better sources. Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on it right now, but I added one book source that might be useful. Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a reference to the term "slut"'s uses in human society. Like how it was likely developed as a response to the problem of pregnancy outside of a marriage before there were condoms, birth control pills and abortion. Many of the people who rely on this website most, the 12-30 age group, do not know this relevent bit of information for political reasons. At least where I live they don't, CA. I'm feeling descriminated against by feminists since my college english teacher this year is one and I need to get a good grade in the class so I have to sort of mind meld with feminists, or to put it more clearly; I have to act like I blame men for alot of things they didnt really cause. I want to be sure to get good grades since the grading of written work can be very subjective as opposed to objective. She said that she would grade objectively but based on the material she chose for us to read, I find that assurance highly suspect... A high percentage of it was focused on the worst aspects of 1950's America, the vast percentage of them emotional arguements with no contemporary analysis. Why not focus on something more relevent to today, it has been 60 years after all, the people in charge then are all either dead or too old to do anything more difficult than eating, pooping and watching television. Thi kind of narrowminded education is what spawns these rediculous New York gatherings over "Important Causes". Females cannot blame men for them calling each other sluts. You can blame a specific person for calling you a slut but how can you blame an entire group of people for something one person did to you? In short, I cant beleive these people got into law school. Sign of the times I guess, pandering to the nutjobs seems to be in fashion right now...Alon (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.133.66 (talk)

Indeed POV with highly loaded feminism cult language. But how would you word it. For starters, someone appears to be a slut and that behaviour gets shunned by other people. Isn't that what slut-shaming is? 197.228.55.126 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Provocative dressing in the lead

Exhibit A: Sandra Fluke, victim of slut-shaming.

The claim is advanced in edit summaries that the existing references say that slut-shaming is related to the way women dress. On the contrary, they do not say anything of the sort. The quotes from the two sources that the altered sentence was left cited to say:

In Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk About Sexuality (Harvard University Press, 2002), Deborah L. Tolman complained that we've "desexualized girls' sexuality, substituting the desire for relationship and emotional connection for sexual feelings in their bodies." Recognizing that fact, theorists have used the concept of desire as a way to undo the double standard that applauds a guy for his lust, calling him a player, and shames a girl for hers, calling her a slut.

Certainly the individualizing admonishment to 'think again' offers no sense of the broader legal and political environment in which sexting might occur, or any critique of a culture that requires young women to preserve their 'reputations' by avoiding overt demonstrations of sexual knowingness and desire. Further, by trading on the propensity of teenagers to feel embarrassment about their bodies and commingling it with the anxiety of mobiles being ever present, the ad becomes a potent mix of technology fear and body shame.

Not a word about the way women dress. The sources in the overview section uniformly talk about behavior rather than dress. If there are sources to support the addition of dress as a factor, let's see them, put info in the body of the article, and then discuss how to summarize them in the lead. It's not reasonable to put wording about dress in the lead and leave it cited to sources that do not discuss dress at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems to me you're trying to redefine the topic. The article already says:

The SlutWalk protest march started in Toronto in response to an incident where a Toronto Police officer told a group of students that they could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts".

If that's not slut shaming then why is it in the article? Also if you read the other references there's obvious references to girls criticising other girls for dressing with short skirts to attract boys etc. etc.

I also completely fail to see how you quoting a couple of paragraphs of anything disproves that slut shaming can be with regards a female's chosen style of dress.

So frankly, I find it difficult to understand why you're revert warring the lead like this.

I certainly agree though that my subject lines were not entirely accurate, there's not a sense that slut shaming is only about style of dress. But if you actually look at the text I crafted, that's not what I changed the article to read. Part of slut shaming is certainly about enforcing conservative styles of dress as a form of sexual control and even more often appears in the context of in-group versus out-group dynamics.GliderMaven (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fine. You're right. The problem is that the lead is sourced to those two sources that don't mention dress. On the other hand the lead shouldn't be sourced to stuff anyway. I'm not sure how to fix that problem right now anyway, and you are actually right. Thanks for clarifying the sentence, and I'm sorry for that second revert.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

I'm a bit flabberghasted to discover that an article on this topic is called "slut shaming". Is this really the best possible article title?? "Slut shaming" is a neologism, but the phenomenon is surely part of a much older tradition of denying female sexuality, and in particular disparaging conduct that would be praised or accepted in men. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzy mongoose, this was actually addressed during a couple of the recent proposals for page removal. Have a gander at them, as referenced at the top of the talk page. There were a couple of movements to merge into the overall "slut" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well merging with slut makes no sense to me - that's an article about a term, not behaviour. Maybe there is no other article that exists on the topic - there is some overlap with Female_sexuality#Historical_conceptions_of_female_sexuality and more with Female_promiscuity#Society_and_culture. I'm not sure what a better title would be; something in the direction of Conceptions of female sexuality maybe. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

A number of IP editors have reinserted this:

It is often used to provide support for women who lead or have led sexually promiscuous lifestyles. In such context, it is implied that women should not bear the burden of responsibility for indiscriminate sexual history, and that their current or former lifestyle should not affect perceptions of their social value as individuals. Specifically, it is emphasized by users of the term that potential sexual or life partners should not consider current or former sexual promiscuity as a factor during selection of female mating partners, and that social peers should not consider such behavior as a basis for public shame.

and sourcing it to (a) a copied reference of an article by Sharon Lamb with a quote that does not support the material and (b) a wordpress blog which, whether it supports the material or not, is not a reliable source for it. Further there is the unsourced addition to the lead that the term is used primarily in feminist literature. Maybe this is true. Is there a source? Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have a thought: it's terribly written and poorly verified, and I wonder if there's just one editor behind all those IPs. Their lack of participation in talk page discussion, along with this slow edit war, made me semi-protect the article. Thank you alf, Drmies (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I made the last reversion edit. It just appeared to me through inspection of the edit war that there were a dedicated few devoted to maintaining non NPOV throughout the content page. The text that was removed (while not eloquently written in the Queen's prose) appeared to introduce a level of neutrality and was accurate in describing popular usage of the term. The source questioned appears to be directly reliable for usage of the term, and appears appropriate given the nature of the subject at hand. Bottom line: The page subject is a neologism that's used as platform speech for a certain political agenda. This has been discussed at length during a proposed page removal. I don't agree that the page should be removed - however the subject is currently presented as a universal practice (i.e. "defined as the act of"), rather than what it actually is (a term used in social propaganda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.88.39 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In what sense is that blog a reliable source for the usage of the term? Also, "defined as the act of" doesn't say anything about the universality of the practice, and neither does "neologism" say anything about the non-universality. If you want to say that this is an imaginary thing you need reliable sources to support the inclusion. If you want to say that it's "a term used in social propaganda" you need reliable sources to support the inclusion. Wordpress blogs are generally not considered reliable sources so you'll have to make extraordinary arguments if you want to use this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me chime in here. The argument for use of the source as reliable has been made, and it is sound. If you cannot read and comprehend, that is not your authorization to remove content based on your lack of understanding or personal political agenda. The blog clearly presents usage of the term in its most accurate form, and is a far more reliable source on usage in popular culture than most of the traditional secondary sources that are loosely referenced throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.16.23.13 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that, there's a noticeboard where people discuss and decide on what counts as a reliable source by Wikipedian standards. Since you and I obviously aren't going to convince one another, maybe you should start a conversation there. Let me know if you need any help in figuring out how to do that. The noticeboard can be found at WP:RSN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel no burden to discuss on a separate board, but you're more than welcome to since you're convinced of your position. I'm sure the noticeboard folks would be glad to hear your view. Let me know if you need any help in crafting your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel no burden, but the burden of making the case that the material is verifiable and the sources are reliable lies on those who wish to include it. See WP:BURDEN. If those who wish to add the material won't take the trouble to make that case in the face of opinions that the material is not verifiable because the source is not reliable then the material must stay out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice view, but I'm disinclined to lend credence to this notion as you will not take the trouble to make your case in the face of opinions that the material is verifiable because the source is reliable on the topic, and as such the material must stay in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Though a bit inappropriate in language used here, I agree with the unsigned. Seems like user Alf is using informal fallacy, diving down the source path in order to keep the article heavily biased toward feminist speech. Wikipedia is not a brochure for activism, and this page reeks of desperation for a voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And which informal fallacy would that be? If the material to be added is accurate then it should be possible to source it to something other than a random wordpress blog.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but you're really grasping at straws by repeating this argument. You've hastily generalized the source into a bucket of non-reliability based on its URL, rather than objectively examining the source content. You've repeatedly used the descriptor 'random' to support your case, but that's where the fallacy lies. I took a read through the source, and it's quite a detailed and centralized forum for publication of feminist ideology, and very descriptively speaks to use of the word. It's almost hilariously ironic that a feminist position seeks to beat down a feminist source, and it's only occurring because the source is indeed accurate on the topic, and this particular accuracy does not suit the agenda of maintaining sensationalism and removing NPOV within this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not grasping at straws, you're just ignoring the way things are done at Wikipedia. Really, it's not just me. Read WP:V for policies on verifiability, ask at the Teahouse, WP:TEAHOUSE, where they explain stuff to new editors, ask anyone. It doesn't matter if a wordpress blog says that the sky is blue and water is wet, we still wouldn't cite it as a source. I'm not sure what you're babbling about with your hilarious irony and all that, but I'm not taking a feminist position or trying to beat down anything. I'm just telling you that on Wikipedia we don't use wordpress blogs for sources no matter how plausible the material is that they contain.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So first you point to burden of verifiability and now you're making absolute arguments about exclusion. You're being inconsistent with your arguments because you're backed into a corner. This is just laughable. Here's some finality to it all: Yes, the source is a blog and blogs "largely should not be used" however a sufficient and reasonable argument for reliability has been made repeatedly (most recently by editor 167.219.88.140 above). As such, the source has been confirmed as reliable over use of the term, and the topic of inclusion has been addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Actually a sufficient argument for reliability has not been made. There are specific criteria for using blogs. Really, if you think that this blog is an exception somehow you should take it to WP:RSN and we'll see what others think. I will certainly abide by the consensus there, but there's been no discussion with substance here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The argument made here has sufficient substance, and you just don't want to hear it. There is no other consensus or posting on separate pages necessary. Your opinion has however been noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.35.33 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Heavy POV

The article presents "slut-shaming" as an established fact, instead of what it is: A recent neologism associated with radical feminist theory. It needs to be heavily edited to remove POV: The lead needs to say clearly that this is a part of feminist thinking. 69.140.83.115 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Slutshaming many feminists and women hate this because it degrades women. so edit that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.84.142 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More than one side to this

I surmise that this "slut-shaming" comes in at least two varities:

1. Personal vindictiveness
2. A philosophy of Familialism

The former would probably be objected to by nearly everyone articulate enough to write anything scholarly, but the latter can at least be argued to legitimize slut-shaming on the grounds that slutty behavior is something that a person actually should be ashamed of. --2610:E0:A040:7EFD:6D5E:5730:7B81:9DB9 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doing research. I'm pointing out that people hold different views on this subject that Wikipedia ought to cover. Do you want examples of such people? It's not as if they're hard to find. The only question is who would be the best to quote from. A great deal has been written critiquing the shamelessness of modern society from a perspective of Familialism. (or related views on sexual ethics) Maybe a passage from The Closing of the American Mind? In any event, clearly the one-sided nature of this article must be apparent to any objective thinker. --2610:E0:A040:7EFD:6D5E:5730:7B81:9DB9 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could argue that the familialism standing would be that of the person shaming as such and that their views are already portrayed there. I see your argument though, if I were you I would try to find a source discussing the theory of slut-shaming specifically from that viewpoint, and use that to quote from. I also wouldn't assert that it is "something that a person actually should be ashamed of" whilst trying to edit the article, editors should generally edit from a neutral point of view --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Drowninginlimbo, No original research. does not qualify on talk pages. He can do all the research he likes on the talk pages, make his case for his edits, but anything added to the article must be reliably sourced. What I would recommend you do anonymous IPv6 editor would be to find reliable sources demonstrating the edits that you wish to add to the article. Tutelary (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mate poaching is the central reason for slut shaming

Mate poaching is the central reason for slut shaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.17.58 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

Whitek67, as you are a WP:Student editor (it's best that you read that page if you have not already) and are a part of Education Program:Richard Stockton College of New Jersey/GIS 3614 Feminist Theory (Fall 2014), do you mind explaining what you are looking to add to the Slut-shaming article? As a WP:Student editor, you should be attempting to communicate with regulars editors of the article/talk page about improvements you want to make; this is partly because the more experienced Wikipedia editors can help appropriately guide you on that matter. As you may have seen, I am the one who reverted you here (followup notes here and here); I reverted because some of what you added was redundant, all of it was poorly sourced (as opposed to using scholarly sources and non-Al Jazeera News sources, though Psychology Today is kind of okay), and there was a lot of WP:Overlinking. In your latest edit to the article, there is more WP:Overlinking. And you cited the same source in full multiple times. There is a better way to cite the same source multiple times; see WP:REFNAME. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

AFD? Is this serious?

How has this article maintained a position here? It's some kind of strange POV piece, not a real topic. Or at any rate, it seems to push an agenda using the pretext of explaining an internet meme. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 13:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to simply be an Internet meme; it has received academic attention and it is covered in many books and news articles. The Wikipedia article has already survived two AFDs, the results were Keep, and Speedy Keep.GliderMaven (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a how-to manual maybe I can write one and publish it on Amazon then we will have another cite for the article. Absurd. Speedy delete and block the creator. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And before you jump on my case I'd like to point out I created Exploitation of women in mass media so it is not a matter of agenda or perspective. This article is really absurd and an insult to the standards of Wikipedia. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Except that your comment about this article smacks entirely of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and demanding that the page creator be blocked really doesn't help your case. The topic of slut-shaming is incredibly notable, and a Google search alone will very quickly provide numerous articles that actually discuss the act; The Guardian, and Al Jazeera America are two such sources on the first two pages alone, and there are more in many other sources. If you have an issue with the article's content, improve it or propose a change. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry I was being sarcastic I guess. Or ironic. The questionable topic aside, the article needs massive revision to avoid its slant. I didn't want to start doing anything like that before seeing what other editors felt. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, any alleged 'slant' of this article does and should reflect that of the academic sources.GliderMaven (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Any approach to a topic involves certain assumptions about its meaning. This article seems to involve a lot of assumptions and a preference for certain wording and arrangement of content. Those are editorial choices, not "academic" sources which I assume means possibly tenured professors at lower end public universities and liberal arts schools. Not that there is anything wrong with either, it just looks like their output. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's not a great article, but it is definitely saveable without that much effort (relative to some things). I recommend you start making or suggesting changes rather than just going around in circles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good article at the moment-it's currently rated as start class, and I would put it between there and C class, it's very rambling but it has surprisingly decent references.GliderMaven (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slut-shaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140404050810/https://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/teenage-peta-pinup-speaks-out-205112851.html to http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/teenage-peta-pinup-speaks-out-205112851.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Mention of prostitution in the lead

Sammy1339 (talk · contribs), regarding this, prostitution is not as commonly discussed as an aspect of slut-shaming, unless the authors are defining slut-shaming as "associating 'sluts' with 'prostitutes' and 'whores' (Ringrose & Renold, 2012:336)." I have seen some sources note that some women feel that prostitution is not degrading and is rather empowering or uplifting and therefore women should not be slut-shamed if they are a prostitute, but when it comes to what is slut-shaming, this view is not as thoroughly held as "violating accepted dress codes by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways, requesting access to birth control, having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex, or when being victim blamed for being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted." Furthermore, prostitution is currently not discussed lower in the article. This makes the prostitution aspect that you seem to want in the lead because prostitutes are, in your words, an "extremely stigmatized group" a WP:Undue weight and WP:Lead violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that this is a good source for the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And, for the record, I don't think that "requesting access to birth control," which was another addition to the lead sometime ago, should be in the lead either...since it's not discussed anywhere lower in the article. And I actually don't see it commonly mentioned as an aspect of slut-shaming either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the article mentions birth control when noting the Rush Limbaugh incident. But when Googling "access to birth control slut-shaming," a few media or news articles on regular Google come up, some mentioning the Limbaugh incident, and a few sources on Google Books comment on the birth control aspect when searching "birth control slut-shaming." Some of the Google Books sources are more reliable than others and are also commenting on the Limbaugh incident. This 2014 The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia source, from SAGE Publications, page 154, is a decent reference, and it states, "[S]lut shaming occurs when female victims are called names for deviating from traditional gender expectations, which can include engaging in sexual behaviors, dressing in sexually provocative ways, using birth control, or even being raped or sexually assaulted." So, yeah, I'm seeing birth control mentioned as an aspect of slut-shaming more than I'm seeing prostitution mentioned as an aspect of it, but neither is mentioned as much as the "sexual behaviors, dressing in sexually provocative ways" and "victim-blaming for rape" aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why that source is no good. There are also others, such as this one, and by including news sources we have a fairly large number, such as this one which complains of the lack of sympathy for Christy Mack. The misogyny directed against sex workers is a pretty blatant example of this phenomenon, so I don't think it should be excluded just because some feminists want to feel comfortable participating in it, which is how I read your first paragraph. If we can find sources claiming that they cannot be slut-shamed, we could add that for balance. You're probably right that the body should be expanded. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes question using university sources since they are often written with a political lean to them. I pointed to the media/news sources, and it's not really many when we only consider the reliable ones. And, like I noted, a good number of them are reiterating the Rush Limbaugh incident. Although, as indicated in the Prostitution article, many feminists find prostitution degrading and harmful to women for a number of reasons, my above comments had nothing to do with feminism. I reverted the other editor because, like I stated, it was a WP:Lead violation and prostitution (whether criticism of it or the women engaging in it) is not as commonly included as an aspect of slut-shaming as the other listed aspects are. This is reflected by scholarly sources that define slut-shaming like the SAGE Publications source I listed above. If we are to include "prostitution" in the lead, the topic should at least be covered lower in the article. Per WP:Due weight (which notes that placement of a piece can also be undue weight), I also think that the prostitution aspect should either be moved to last in the "Some examples of circumstances" sentence or given its own sentence beside that one, briefly noting that prostitution can be an example of slut-shaming and how that's the case. Right now, the lead only states "prostitution" for it, and, given that there exists legitimate criticisms of prostitution, I don't think simply including "prostitution" helps at all. Prostitution by itself is not slut-shaming, and criticism of it is not necessarily slut-shaming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: The lead states "engaging in prostitution," not simply "prostitution." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

So are you of the opinion that prostitutes are not slut shamed? I'm pretty sure that that routinely occurs. And references seem to indicate that slut shaming is part of a process pimps use to make women engage in prostitution.GliderMaven (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not of the opinion that prostitutes are not slut-shamed. And it's not often that I rely solely on my opinion regarding how a Wikipedia article should be edited anyway. Many know that I dislike WP:Activism editing. I follow what the literature states and with due weight, which is exactly why I made the arguments I did above and made this edit (followup fix here) moments ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking over a number of sources (mainly scholarly sources) discussing slut-shaming, I'm still not convinced that mention of prostitution is lead material, but I'm not going to continue to object to it being in the lead as long as the matter is covered lower in the article. I will allow some time for the "Definitions and characteristics" section to be expanded with the prostitution aspect, so that the body reflects the lead on the prostitution piece. I might even expand the body with the prostitution aspect myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I thought of putting a section on this in the article, but it's really such a mess of haphazardly quoted primary sources that I'm not sure how to go about it. I'd like your opinion first.

About the point we are arguing over, it really doesn't matter whether some criticisms of prostitution are "valid" or "legitimate" (we disagree on that) but whether the term has been applied to the undeniable bigotry towards sex workers, which takes the form of ostracism from society, government-run public humiliation rituals, and feminism, and is so severe that some progressive people think its interesting to assert that prostitutes are human. In every case, people believe their own views are valid. I could provide lots more examples of this, which certainly go far beyond applying dirty names to prostitutes - moreover, to frame the problem this way dramatically misses the point. The main reason those words are dirty is because of the tremendous stigma attached to promiscuity and prostitution, to the point that "slut shaming" often takes the form of simply calling women prostitutes, as in the Rush Limbaugh case. It's also not what the source says.

That said, I'm not sure what the scope of the article should be and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Should it be about the term itself, or the whole phenomenon of suppression of women's sexuality through shame? If the latter, we have a lot more sources, including a fair number of empirical studies like this one, but if not, I wouldn't really know how to approach the subject without NPOV issues since most sources using this term are, as you noted above, political. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not on the term "slut shaming", we're not a dictionary.GliderMaven (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Synthesis, the sources should clearly be about the concept of slut-shaming. In this case, the word is important. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, synthesis is about making up facts, this is about choosing a topic. "slut shaming" is not the topic of the article, that's just the phrase you type in to find this topic.GliderMaven (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, using sources for a topic without it being explicitly clear that the sources are about that topic is WP:Synthesis. If you doubt me on that, which you clearly do, we can invite editors from the WP:Synthesis talk page to weigh in on this. Or, you know, start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Sammy1339. There's no need to ping me to this talk page since the article is clearly on my watchlist. The sources you listed are obvously not scholarly sources. I'm not sure what to think about genderacrossborders.com as a WP:Reliable source, and The Huffington Post has been criticized so much at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard (check the search archives there on it) that I am always wary of using it as a source, except for fictional topics like Lexa (The 100). I reiterate that my point is that prostitution as a form of slut-shaming is mainly cited in media/news sources (I haven't found much on it scholarly sources) and it is not as commonly cited as part of the definition of slut-shaming as those other aspects are. So WP:Due weight does, in fact, come into play here. My point is that the lead should summarize the article, not include things not already addressed lower in the article. So, again, WP:Due weight comes into play here. Regardless of whether we personally find some criticisms of prostitution valid or invalid, many reliable sources (not just feminist sources) have cited numerous problems with prostitution, including health issues and the sex trafficking of children, and we should therefore not give any indication that criticism of prostitution is automatically slut-shaming. So, yes, per WP:Neutral, I think it matters whether or not valid criticisms of prostitution have been made. As for my change to the lead, that can obviously be supported by one of the media sources. My goal was to provide an example of how prostitution can fit into the definition of slut-shaming. The lead is not for giving every example, and I've been clear that I (typically) don't think least common examples should be in the lead; I feel that way about every Wikipedia article.

The scope of the article should simply be about the topic. We can't limit the scope without injecting any biases we may have. We can only follow what the sources state, and with due weight. I can be fine with the mention of prostitution in the lead, with a better explanation from you of what slut-shaming involves when it comes to prostitution, but I obviously feel that the lead shouldn't state too much about it and am pushing for the lower part of the article to be expanded with information about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we are talking past each other a bit. I don't read the article as saying that any criticism of prostitution is slut-shaming; all it says is that women can be slut-shamed for engaging in prostitution. Is that controversial? And as for the scope, would my last source be appropriate in your view, even though it doesn't use the term? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The primary question is what the topic needs to be; it seems to me it needs to be everything about social shaming women for their sexuality-related wants, behaviors and needs, of whatever forms they take.GliderMaven (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's actually less clear to me, which is why I phrased it as a question. We could alternatively view this as a pop-feminism concept, which also has been used in some scholarly sources which draw on feminist theory, like this one, and make the broader topic a separate article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sammy1339, the text that you reverted to states "engaging in prostitution." Above, I argued "criticism of [prostitution] is not necessarily slut-shaming." Criticism of prostitution includes criticism of engaging in the act of prostitution. There are numerous reliable sources citing valid criticisms of the act, and without any mention of this being slut-shaming. With the way you have the lead, a reader can easily think that the lead is "saying that any criticism of prostitution is slut-shaming." So, for the lead, unless you have alternative wording that explains how prostitution relates to slut-shaming, I will pursue restoration of the previous sentence I added...but with a different source. I would rather this matter be settled here on the talk page without a WP:RfC or similar, especially since I'm usually very busy and gathering sources takes time. By that, I mean that, for an RfC, I usually gather a number of sources for participants to weigh what is appropriate per the literature. As for that last source, per WP:Synthesis, I don't think it's an appropriate source. As for making the broader topic a separate article, as long as it's not a WP:Content fork violation, I would be fine with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit dizzying. The article doesn't say anything about "criticism" - it says that women can be slut-shamed for engaging in prostitution. We have sources saying this. (Both academic and news sources - you first said you didn't like the first kind and would rather rely on news and media sources; then when I listed a few, you said well, they aren't scholarly sources.) We have no sources saying that the stigma applied to prostitutes is not slut-shaming because some criticisms of prostitutes are valid. That seems to be your OR, but if we can find a source for that (which I'm sure is out there somewhere) maybe that notion will deserve mention in the article.

I'm not sure how to write the other article without making it a content fork as it necessarily will discuss much the same material, but using sources that don't contain this phrase. That is, unless we establish that this article is about the phrase as it appears in feminist sources. Currently it says "in human sexuality". --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead states "engaging in prostitution" and does not explain how this relates to slut-shaming. In other words, the lead is not clear on how prostitution relates to slut-shaming. It simply states "engaging in prostitution," as though any disagreement with a person engaging in prostitution is slut-shaming. You call that my OR. I call it undoubtedly vague wording and me using common sense, after seeing wording at this site interpreted in a variety of ways for years. I stated nothing about rather preferring to rely on news and media sources; unless the topic is mostly a media topic, I barely rely on such sources when building a Wikipedia article. I thought I was clear that the prostitution aspect of slut-shaming is lacking because it is mostly covered by news and media sources and barely scholarly sources. The fact that it has such little scholarly attention is something that should absolutely be a factor when considering how much weight to give it. These types of articles should not be mostly based on news/media sources, and the same goes for any aspect of it unless it's an "In the media" section.

As for writing an article without making it a content fork, not all content forking on Wikipedia is bad. That is why I linked to WP:Content fork and stated "as long as it's not a [violation of that guideline]." If it violates that guideline, you will have editors proposing that your article is deleted and/or that some parts of it are merged with this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I take it that you think that how prostitution relates to slut-shaming is covered by "is a form of social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors." I can see that as a valid rationale, but I still think that simply stating "engaging in prostitution" and leaving it at that is problematic. The wording "violating accepted dress codes by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways" and "being victim blamed for being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted" is very clear; so is "requesting access to birth control." And because of definitions of slut, it is very obvious that the "having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex" part is an aspect of slut-shaming. Given what has been stated above, on both of our parts, about prostitution, however, I think that "engaging in prostitution" needs more elaboration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Women are shamed for engaging in prostitution, period. Any qualification of that can only make it less accurate. It's perhaps the canonical example of slut-shaming. The article says nothing about what criticisms are valid, regarding dress or anything else.

Regarding this, the copyedit introduced awkward wording and I reverted it on purpose. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

About academic sources, I must have misunderstood when you wrote "I sometimes question using university sources since they are often written with a political lean to them. I pointed to the media/news sources..." But anyway, if you want to keep arguing that some stigmatization of women for engaging in prostitution is not slut-shaming, please provide a source supporting that assertion. (Certainly there are sources which claim that the term "shaming" has been overused as a substitute for argument. Maybe you'll find something there.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You clearly are not understanding me on the prostitution aspect, but stating that "any qualification of that can only make it less accurate" is inaccurate. Slut-shaming is criticism. If one looks at the definitions of criticism, one can see that slut-shaming is criticism. It's criticism of women "who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors." Actually, that exact definition needs to be sourced, because when I look at scholarly sources for the definition of slut-shaming, like the aforementioned one, they either only mention name-calling (girls/women being called names for deviating from traditional gender expectations), or name-calling is a big part of it. Clearly, these sources are talking about one specific form of criticism or more than one. As for the Wikipedia article not explicitly using the word criticism, even if we were comparing criticisms, the criticism aspect for prostitution is not on the same level as the criticism aspects for "violating accepted dress codes by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways" or "having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex." Not many sources (except for different religious ones) would state that a girl is a slut or morally wrong for violating accepted dress codes by dressing in sexually provocative ways. Valid sources might note legitimate issues with a young girl dressing in sexually provocative ways, such as past sexual abuse, a troubled home life, etc., but that is not slut-shaming. The main sources criticizing girls and women for "having premarital, casual, or promiscuous sex" are religious, psychological and medical ones, and many would disagree that the psychological and medical ones are slut-shaming. I see no reliable sources criticizing women for "requesting access to birth control." I see no reliable sources criticizing women for being raped (I don't count sources from men's rights groups). I see plenty of reliable sources criticizing women (and men too) for engaging in prostitution. Is that slut-shaming? Some would say yes, while others would say no, especially depending on the context...such as the varied problems that come along with prostitution. So how are readers to know if it's slut-shaming or not when the article doesn't clarify? Like I stated, the other matters are easier to discern as being a form of slut-shaming. Prostitution is a more complicated issue when it comes to the topic of slut-shaming, which is why I assume it's talked about less in sources on the topic.

And either way, the prostitution aspect currently still does not belong in the lead...per WP:Undue and WP:Lead. Even its placement is WP:Undue weight since it is the least discussed topic when it comes to slut-shaming. And yet you seem to be insisting that it stay ahead of "being victim blamed for being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted." As for this, the copyedit by GliderMaven was an improvement. The previous wording was awkward.

About academic sources, you indeed misunderstood me. Let me be clear: A university source is one type of scholarly source, and I sometimes question using university sources since they are often written with a political lean to them; this is especially the case for a topic like this one. When I stated "I pointed to the media/news sources, and it's not really many when we only consider the reliable ones.", it was because you had used media sources to make your case. I was making it clear that I had already assessed media sources on the topic of slut-shaming, such as when I relayed that "when Googling 'access to birth control slut-shaming,' a few media or news articles on regular Google", and it's mainly media sources that I saw supporting the prostitution aspect as part of the topic. And I never argued that "some stigmatization of women for engaging in prostitution is not slut-shaming." I argued that there are various reliable sources criticizing prostitution, and that criticism of prostitution includes those who engage in it. Such sources are easily found without me being of assistance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, out of curiosity, did you follow me to this article? If so, why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the article can reasonably be read as saying that all such criticism is unjustified (in fact, it doesn't even say that slut-shaming is unjustified, although one hopes reasonable people will understand that.) It also doesn't say criticism, it says stigmatization. We have sources saying that stigmatization of sex workers is slut-shaming, and no sources that say it isn't. Whenever you bring up the idea that some criticisms are "valid" or "legitimate", you are talking about your subjective opinion on a subject that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with this one.

Also, whether there are authoritative sources condemning rape victims depends upon what country you live in. However I don't think we should get into this as it really doesn't matter. Of course every stigmatized group of people will have people who think the stigma is legitimate, so saying that there are arguments to that effect can hardly be evidence that there's no stigma.

I did follow you here. I checked your contribs at one point during the bikini discussion (I can't seem to recall why) and happened to notice this edit. It's certainly not that I have anything against you. In fact I think you're a pretty good editor. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You stated, "Whenever you bring up the idea that some criticisms are 'valid' or 'legitimate', you are talking about your subjective opinion on a subject that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with this one." I disagree, and have been over why. We can deal with the lead later, though, especially since all three of us and reliable sources agree that prostitutes can be slut-shamed for being prostitutes. Right now, I think we should focus on the scope of the article and expanding the lower parts of the article. So I'll focus on the below section for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea this would be so controversial! I have added an additional citation, Sex Workers Unite: A History of the Movement from Stonewall to SlutWalk, to the article, which mentions slut-shaming many times and has a chapter devoted to slut-shaming. When I added it initially thought it was pretty obvious that prostitutes are slut-shamed and was surprised it wasn't mentioned. I agree it needs to be talked about more extensively in the body of the article.

To play Devil's Advocate, I think the most convincing argument for *not* including it is that one could consider shaming prostitutes a different kind of shaming. For instance, in my research I also encountered the terms whorephobia, whore dishonor, and whore stigma. So, one could argue that slut-shaming and whore stigma are distinct and whore stigma (which does not currently have an article) should be a separate article.

However, I discovered something interesting in this 1993 paper about whore stigma/whore dishonor:

"The following activities are generally subsumed under whore dishonor by straight society, i.e., society identified as legitimate, lawful, and necessarily unassociated with prostitution: (1) engaging in sex with strangers; (2) engaging in sex with many partners; (3) as a woman, taking sexual initiative, controlling sexual encounters, and being an expert on sex; (4) asking for money in exchange for sex; (5) as a woman, using one's energy and abilities to satisfy impersonal male lust and sexual fantasies; (6) as a woman, being out at night alone, on dark streets, dressed to attract male desire; (7) as a woman, being in situations with supposedly brash, drunk, or abusive men whom one either can handle ("uppity or vulgar women") or cannot handle ("victimized women")."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/466259

If you read that passage, they seem to include basically everything in this article that's called "slut-shaming" as aspects of "whore dishonor." So one could make the argument that slut-shaming is either a subset of or equivalent to "whore stigma", and one could go so far as to claim this article should be called "whore stigma."

But I think we will probably all agree "slut-shaming" seems to be the more common term that is well known today. Perhaps instead we should consider whore stigma/dishonor a subset of slut-shaming instead, if only for convenience, to talk about prostitution-specific shaming. I would be happy to add a subsection called whore stigma that talks more specifically about prostitution-specific shaming, but thought I would ask here first if that seems reasonable. Mvolz (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mvolz, thanks for weighing in. What you stated above is all the more reason that, per WP:Synthesis, we should be sticking to what the sources state...and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm surprised that no one has tagged this page page as an NPOV dispute because it's basically stating an opinion as a fact. Marideth1996 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no problem with statements or referenced opinions, provided they're not those of the editors. Everything ever written is someone's opinion or statement.GliderMaven (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the article reflects the reliable sources that discuss its subject. If there is some set of reliable sources that are not represented here or there is some instance where the content does not accuately reflect the sources cited, please point that out. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of on-topic material from the article

User:Sammy1339 edits constitute an editor edit warring away on-topic material from the article. [1] [2]. The inclusion of vocabulary related to a topic is a very normal part of an article; and its removal is clearly motivated.

I don't have a problem with the material being included in a different form, but its removal does not seem to be appropriate.GliderMaven (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Mate poaching

An anon editor has twice added the vague term "mate poaching" to the lede. I removed it, and asked in the edit summary for an explanation or discussion. I has been added again. I don't want to get in to an edit war so can someone else have a look at it and comment. Thanks. --Dmol (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)--Dmol (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Women sometimes slut-shame another woman who they see as trying to take the mate of another woman which is what mate poaching is. Slut shaming is much more likely to happen in mate poaching situations than in any other situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.154.219 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed that unsourced piece, which is pretty much a slang term. You need to stop WP:Edit warring over this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 @Dmol I was amused this and did a quick Google. A "vague term"? Heh. I think most people would guess exactly what it means. It may be neologism but it appears 'mate poaching' now very much an accepted term and there are endless articles, and studies. And surely only the most rabid feminist would deny it as one instigator of slut-shaming. So it *should* be in the lede with the rest of the reasons otherwise it's compromised, and open to charges of feminist bias.

1. [[3]] 2. [[4]] 3. Human Mate Poaching: Tactics and Temptations for Infiltrating Existing Mateships. David P. Schmitt. Bradley University. David M. Buss. University of Texas

[[5]] Engleham (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, what reliable sources state that mate poaching is slut-shaming? And even if you list one or a few, why would you think that this belongs in the lead when it isn't anywhere close to being a common definition of slut-shaming? I also fail to see these "endless studies" on "mate poaching." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn It's not slut-shaming. It's one of the provokers of slut-shaming. Common knowlege! Who hasn't walked past a street fight, schoolgirl or otherwise, and heard the equivalent of "You stole my man you slut!" The lede lists common examples of other instigators of slutshaming. To leave this one out is a gross omission. Engleham (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, let me rephrase: What reliable sources state that mate poaching is an aspect of slut-shaming? And even if you list one or a few, why would you think that this belongs in the lead when it isn't anywhere close to being a common aspect of the definition of slut-shaming? Undue weight definitions do not belong in the lead. And neither do topics not discussed lower in the article. See WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn As I previous stated stated, this is common knowledge. Any person in the street knows that mate poaching its a common instigator of slut-shaming, and to question it as a fact is simply being tendentious. "What reliable sources state that mate poaching is an aspect of slut-shaming?" You really want another source? Try: Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivation, from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)(https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AFEx4DUK5FUC&) which is the result of a research study which found that one of the reasons is "Conquest.... "It has always been recognized that men compete for women and brag with their success in this area. However, it is becoming more evident that women also compete for men. They use sexual domination and slut-shaming in competition with other women. Some women even deliberately pursue married men – mate poaching." But again, this is, perfectly obvious stuff. As this article [6] states: "Women are vicious to each other about slut-shaming. ... because they're experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women." Lastly you ask: "And even if you list one or a few why would you think that this belongs in the lead when it isn't anywhere close to being a common aspect of the definition of slut-shaming? " As I previously said, it's not a definition of slut-shaming, it's a cause. Read the lede again. The lede lists other common causes. But mate-poaching has been omitted -- presumably because some feminists know that mate poaching reflects badly on women and don't wish it mentioned. It needs to be in the article if it is not be biased. Engleham (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, as I've been trying to make clear to you, we go by WP:Reliable sources here. We will not be including "mate poaching" as form of slut-shaming unless there are reliable sources stating that it is slut-shaming. The sources you cited do not state that "mate poaching" is a form of slut-shaming, and that second source is citing a piece from a book that is repeated on the Internet with regard to "mate poaching" and slut-shaming; it is just about the only source (besides that other one you cited) tying the two. That is why mate poaching has been omitted. I do not identify as a feminist. I'm not sure about Dmol. But your "feminist are trying to keep this out of the article" claims have no place here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn Jesus Christ. To repeat for the *THIRD* time: I have never -- NEVER! --- said 'mate poaching" is slut-shaming, or a form of slutshaming'. Nor do the reliable sources I've provided claim such. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. Got that? Here's what I wrote, and what reliable sources state - including the research study I linked to: mate poaching is one CAUSE of slut shaming. CAUSE -- as in: "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition." Not the action, phenomenon or condition itself. Have we grasped the distinction now? Engleham (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, notice that I used the words "aspect of slut-shaming" above and that you didn't have an issue with that? So do leave the semantics argument at the door. I see no reliable sources stating that mate poaching is one cause of slut-shaming. Your sources do not state that. Nowhere do they state "Mate poaching is one cause of slut-shaming" or similar. You are taking sources and combining them in ways not explicitly stated by the sources. That is WP:Synthesis. Get it? Should I cite the entire WP:Synthesis policy to you? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn You need to go back and read: I provided a single reliable source based on a research study. The other three sources provided prior were to show matepoaching was a common term. No synthesis about it. You want yet another reference to show mate poaching is an instigator of slut-shaming? Try this: "female slut-shaming isn't the product of some deep self-loathing or in-group hatred. Rather, it is as prevalent as it is because a promiscuous rival is a woman's biggest threat to keeping a good boyfriend…"Sluts" aren't derogated because women are uncomfortable with their sexuality; it's because they're experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women… –– Tucker Max and Geoffrey Miller are the authors of Mate: Become the Man Women Want, Little, Brown & Company.[7] It can't get clearer than that. Engleham (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, what you previously quoted was not stating that mate poaching is a cause of slut-shaming. For example, the "because they're experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women" text was broken up in way that I felt was misleading. It is easy to piece together different sentences of a source and make it seem like they support one's view. Your latest quote is clearer. I appreciate that. Mate poaching is when a woman steals another woman's man (or when a man steals another man's woman, and the term probably applies to same-sex couples too). The source you just cited is stating that a woman might be slut-shamed for fear that she might steal another's man. I do see how we can include that in the article. It still does not belong in the lead because, per WP:Lead, the lead is for summarizing what is already discussed lower in the article. Also, we should only stick to sources that are very clear that a woman might be slut-shamed for fear that she will take another's partner. The new term mate poaching is not needed, and it might be easier to find information on "slut-shamed for fear of stealing another's partner" without that term. There are also media sources that challenge the idea of mate poaching, like this "Newsflash: You Can't Steal Someone Else's Partner" Jezebel site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn"Also, we should only stick to sources that are very clear that a woman might be slut-shamed for fear that she will take another's partner." Only for the FEAR that it will happen? Come off it! Much of slut shaming happens after sluts have scored their booty! And what's this shit about it can't be in the lede because it's not in the article? What kind of schoolyard girly game is this? For the Nth and final time, given mate poaching would be the MAJOR cause of slutshaming it SHOULD be in the fucking article, and if you have an ounce of respect for truth, you'll insert it yourself. Engleham (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, I'm following this site's rules (including the WP:Lead rule, which you seemingly have not read). If you want to sit here and be disrespectful and not follow the rules, that's your choice, but it will get you nowhere but in an appropriate forum for misbehavior. Comments like "Much of slut shaming happens after sluts have scored their booty!" show your mindset and is also something that is not supported by any source. Come off of it? How about you learn how to actually edit this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And as for my "we should only stick to sources that are very clear that a woman might be slut-shamed for fear that she will take another's partner" statement, I was emphasizing that we should stick to what the sources state. I was not stating that we cannot include any other material on mate poaching being associated with slut-shaming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn I've been editing for 10 years. I know how ledes work. I said add the new content to the article. It then – (of course!) – follows that the lead can be revised. I feel like I've fallen into some satire on blue-haired millennial feminist dialogue where, for hours on end, the bleedingly obvious is endlessly questioned, far beyond any degree of normality – even by Wikipedia standards, and with the utmost tendentiousness, while one's life slowly drips away. As I prefer dealing with basic common sense, and also not wading through the verbiage of WP:CRUSH, I'm out of this page. Engleham (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, I do not have the time nor patience to continue this argument with you. I don't even have the patience to report you for the incivility antics you are well known for. So it's good that you are "out of this page." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Weasel Word Phrase Correction

Under the "Definitions and Characteristics" subtitle, first paragraph, I recommend to remove the words 'many have stated' in front of the sentence "Many have stated that slut-shaming is used against women by both men and women," because this is a weasel phrase. Studentuser1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Studentuser1, how would you suggest we reword the sentence? Keep in mind that "many" is not automatically a WP:Weasel word. See what Template:Who states, for example. And as the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline notes at the very top, the guideline should not be applied rigidly. Sometimes the words some or many are needed, especially to avoid inappropriate use of WP:In-text attribution (which can make it seem like only one or a few authors hold the view in question). The sentence you question is sourced, but I would need to check the source to see if "many" is supported. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We could and should change the sentence to "Slut-shaming is used against women by both men and women." The word many is not needed since it is a fact that slut-shaming is used against women by both men and women. It's a fact that can be supported by various sources. So I changed the text here. Followup edit here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what Studentuser1 suggested to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Studentuser1's argument was based on "many" being a weasel word. I replied that there is not automatically anything wrong with using "many." I then took the sentence into better consideration, seeing that "many" is not at all needed since it's a fact that slut-shaming is used against women by both men and women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Online Sexual Violence

What exactly is "online sexual violence"? Is that when someone teabags your avatar in X-Box Live? Until the "make their computer punch them in the face" button is invented, "online violence" is categorically not a thing that can exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Scope

Actually I'm finding that recent papers are referring to earlier literature on suppression of female sexuality as examples of slut-shaming, so I think the article needs to be about that. For example, a conference abstract refers to this classic paper as well as the paper by Vaillancourt that I cited above as being about slut-shaming. I think this gives us a lot of sources, so if there's no objection, I'd like to start replacing the mess of primary sources we currently have. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be about what the literature states as a whole, and weighed appropriately per the WP:Due weight policy. It should not be mostly based on what recent sources state; in other words, we should not be engaging in WP:Recentism. Also, why do you think sources like this conference abstract one are good to use? And I reiterate that using a source like "Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality" for the topic of slut-shaming is WP:Synthesis. The sources need to explicitly be about slut-shaming; and, yes, that means that the sources should use the word slut-shaming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I told GliderMave above, "using sources for a topic without it being explicitly clear that the sources are about that topic is WP:Synthesis. If you doubt me on that, which you clearly do, we can invite editors from the WP:Synthesis talk page to weigh in on this. Or, you know, start a WP:RfC on the matter." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And, actually, having a RfC about what should be the scope of this article, including whether or not using certain sources to build its content is a WP:Synthesis violation, is not a bad idea. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, those papers are also described as being about this subject in NYT, as well as in a paper on slut-shaming, which we can use as a secondary source drawing on this. I also tend to agree with GliderMave that the article should be about the idea, not the word, but I'm not married to that position. I'd hate to have an RfC on an article that needs a total rewrite anyway. That sounds like a terrible waste of time, so I hope we can sort it out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's on topic, if it's on-topic, not whether it uses particular words or phraseology. The prohibition in Wikipedia is against making shit up, not against putting something into an article or not. I cannot emphasise enough that's not what WP:SYNTH is; synth is not about mere juxtaposition in an article.GliderMaven (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As many SYNTH cases on this site have shown, WP:SYNTH has much to do with the title of the article. How else do you think we judge what is or is not synthesis when it comes to an article's sources? We do not leave the matter open to interpretation when it comes to what an article covers; otherwise, the article will include a lot of things that are not what the topic is about. Since you don't seem to think this is the case, I will ask editors at the WP:Synthesis talk page to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this and this show the inquiries I left about this. The latter is a note at the WP:Original research noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You've repeatedly not understood this. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise material, and we're not simply summarising references to the words 'slut shaming', we're here to summarise ANY material, in any language, or in any phraseology which amounts to being on topic. And the topic is not the term "slut shaming". For example, if there's an article on calling someone a "Prostituição" in portugese, that's still slut shaming, and we can reference it. We just have to decide between us, whether something is on topic or not, and whether we are introducing bias or undue WP:weight. That's how it works in Wikipedia, not your oversimplified misunderstanding.GliderMaven (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Either you have repeatedly misunderstood me, or we have different opinions on what WP:Synthesis is. Like I stated at the noticeboard: "There is no need to state 'A Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word.' This is not a WP:Not a dictionary matter. This is a matter concerning whether or not it is acceptable to take sources that do not make it explicitly clear, in words, that the topic is about slut-shaming and then using those sources to make claims about slut-shaming. Using sources in that way is WP:Synthesis, as has been shown repeatedly on this site. [Sammy1339] is thinking about broadening the scope of the article; I am being clear that broadening the scope beyond sources using the word slut-shaming to identify slut-shaming is WP:Synthesis. The way that we judge whether or not sources are about the topic is whether the sources explicitly call the topic by its title. Since editors can have different opinions about what is or isn't the topic, or a part of the topic (such as what is or isn't slut-shaming), we do not make judgement calls about whether a source is about a topic. We do not leave such matters open to interpretation. We know this."

I have started a WP:RfC on the matter below, for others to weigh in, since barely anyone has weighed in on this disagreement thus far and since I find your understanding of WP:Synthesis problematic. In my opinion, you are oversimplifying matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One view is that this article is about the topic, not the word, and so we can use sources to identify matters as slut-shaming even if the sources do not call the matter slut-shaming; it is for us to decide whether something is on topic or not, and whether we are introducing bias or undue WP:weight. The other view is this is not a WP:Not a dictionary matter; this is a matter concerning whether or not it is acceptable (and not a WP:Synthesis violation) to take sources that do not make it explicitly clear, in words, that the topic is about slut-shaming and then using those sources to make claims about slut-shaming. For those viewing this from the RfC page or their talk page, the full discussion is above, at Talk:Slut-shaming#Scope. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Take a convenient definition of slut-shaming, for example from the current lede that says, "social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors". If a source is talking about something that meets that general description, it's on-topic. This is obviously a phenomenon that has existed for thousands of years, so there are going to be lots of sources that predate the relative neologism of "slut-shaming". In fact, sticking to that term is likely to promote WP:Recentism and WP:POVFUNNEL or be a WP:POVFORK of one or more of Sexual repression, Modesty, Sex-positive feminism, Casual sex, or Indecent exposure. Rhoark (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Since this is the "Survey" section, I take Rhoark's answer as "No, it wouldn't be a WP:Synthesis violation" as long as editors agree that the sources are about "social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors." The reason that I disagree with Rhoark and those who agree with that view is that editors can have different opinions about what is or isn't slut-shaming, or a part of the topic (see the #Mention of prostitution in the lead discussion above), and because the WP:Synthesis policy is very clear that we should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." This means that we should not call something slut-shaming unless a source explicitly identifies it as slut-shaming. WP:Synthesis says, "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." The fact that there have been sources commenting on the "social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors" before the term slut-shaming came into existence does not mean that we can validly group all of that material under the term slut-shaming. To do so is to assign a modern word about a modern concept (yes, modern in the sense that sources usually discuss it) and apply it to discussions and concepts that authors of yesteryear probably would not classify as slut-shaming. Furthermore, slut-shaming is not always defined the same way; it is often defined by name-calling, as indicated by this source I cited above, which states, "[S]lut shaming occurs when female victims are called names for deviating from traditional gender expectations, which can include engaging in sexual behaviors, dressing in sexually provocative ways, using birth control, or even being raped or sexually assaulted." There are many topics about the sexual social stigmas that apply to women; the Social stigma article is for that and all of the other social stigmas. Us calling any form "slut-shaming" without reliable sources explicitly naming them as forms of slut-shaming is a WP:Synthesis violation; I don't see how that's not clear. It's like, for the Black Plague or Cancer article, if we were to use sources that are seemingly describing the Black Plague or cancer without those sources explicitly stating that the diseases are, or might have been, the Black Plague or cancer. Slut-shaming is a WP:Notable topic, and it is the result of the modern era. Having a Slut-shaming article is not a WP:POVFORK of Sexual repression, Modesty, Sex-positive feminism, Casual sex, or Indecent exposure. If one wants this article broadened to all sexual social stigmas about women, and any discussion of them, it should be renamed. Even if renamed, there would be editors who feel that "slut-shaming" should be its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm highly dubious about this argument. Our article on the black death should absolutely be able to use sources which discuss the "Great Plague" or "Great Mortality", even if they don't use the phrase "black death", because they clearly are talking about the black death. It should equally be able to use sources which discuss the fourteenth-century European bubonic plague epidemic, even if they never refer to it by any common shorthand name. It's certainly true that editors shouldn't be able to use any old source which they claim is discussing slut-shaming, but I don't think the bar realistically ought to be so high as to prevent the use of any source which does not explicitly mention the phrase "slut-shaming". (To descend for a moment into argumentum ad absurdum, presumably you wouldn't suggest that an article discussing "slut shaming" couldn't be used because it would be synth to conclude that "slut-shaming" and "slut shaming" are the same thing.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, do you find my entire "02:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)" argument dubious (even though it's a fact that taking sources that do not make it explicitly clear, in words, that the sources are about the topic and then using those sources to make claims about the topic is consistently viewed as a synthesis violation here at Wikipedia), or is it the black plague argument? I am aware of alternative names; I often cite the WP:Alternative name policy, and recently did so at the Black Death article. I wasn't making a WP:Alternative name argument in the case of this article. Any alternative names for slut-shaming should be explicitly supported by a reliable source. If you look at the #Mate poaching section above and a recent argument by Engleham there, you should see one of the main issues with not using sources that explicitly identify a matter as being slut-shaming. The arguments made by Malik Shabazz and SMcCandlish below also show issues with not doing so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the #Mate poaching section above and a recent argument by Engleham there, you should see one of the main issues with not using sources that explicitly identify a matter as being slut-shaming. The issue that I see there is an editor is claiming that common knowledge is enough to support the inclusion of something which has been challenged, in contravention of WP:V. If they had produced a source which said "the most common reason for the stigmatisation of women who violate traditional expectations of sexual behaviour is 'mate-poaching'", then (assuming the source was reliable and the coverage followed WP:DUE) I see no reason why that necessarily shouldn't be in the article.

I understand that you want to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in what is likely to be a contentious article; however, I think that restricting sources to works that explicitly use the phrase "slut-shaming" as your RfC suggests is unnecessarily restrictive. I largely agree with SMcCandlish that if the article is clear on what is meant by slut-shaming, it will be possible to decide on whether a source is discussing slut-shaming even if that source doesn't necessarily use the word. (As an example of a similar case, the WP article on gay bashing uses this as a soure even though it doesn't used the phrase "gay bashing" at all. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, like I stated below, there are sources that define slut-shaming differently. And what is slut-shaming is open to interpretation, including the aforementioned mate poaching example. If we let even a margin of synthesis in, the floodgates will have opened for all types of other synthesis. I cannot tell you how many Wikipedia articles I have seen this type of thing happen at. This is not a matter of easily identifying what is violence. And, ideally, for the Gay bashing article, the sources should usually use the term gay bashing or similar to keep out synthesis. I've seen LGBT people disagree on what is gay bashing. I replied further in the Discussions section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• First, I should mention that I was invited to comment here by Flyer22 Reborn. I don't think a source has to explicitly use the phrase "slut-shaming" to be used, but an editor whose contribution to the article relies on a source that doesn't explicitly use the phrase should be prepared to explain why the source is referring to "slut-shaming" and expect her/his contribution to be subject to heightened scrutiny and perhaps a higher bar in terms of consensus. I think consensus would probably be determined on a case-by-case basis when (or if) material added to the article is challenged. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• There are two completely different things here. One is use of the term "slut-shaming". The other is the concept of it (the meaning, i.e. what acts or attitudes are encompassed, regardless whether that specific slang name for it is applied or not). If we have a reliably sourced and clear definition of what this is as a discrete concept, then it is not OR to identify unambiguous cases of it. The problem lies in finding any alleged cases of it that are unambiguous. It can still, definitely and commonly, be OR to identify questionable cases, or to extend the definition to apply to somewhat similar things, or to label as slut-shaming something that may have multiple rationales or explanations. This kind of distinction is always going to hold true for any socio-political concept, and the burden is always going to be on showing that it's not OR, rather than on proving that it is, when any WP:AEIS might be involved, beyond "analyzing and interpreting" reliable source material enough to summarize the gist of its relevant parts into Wikipedia-toned content, "evaluating" the source's reliability, and "synthesizing" multiple sources in non-novel ways to massage our content into parseable sentences and paragraphs. For things like this topic, it is important to remember WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. WP is not the place to exhaustively catalogue everything that might be slut-shaming; our article on that topic does not need a large pile of examples, it only needs to make it clear what the concept is, explain what the sources say about it, and provide enough sourced examples to elucidate.

  That said, the Black Death point immediately above is spot-on. If we have a source that uses some other term(s) than the slangish "slut-shaming", as defined in this article (i.e., as defined by other reliable sources) to describe the same thing, there's no problem covering that in the same article. E.g., there is no question that the harassment of Belle Knox by fellow Duke U. students for having been in porn films qualifies, overall, as slut-shaming. (Some individual negative responses to her may not have been – e.g. "high feminist" opposition to participation in male-owned and -targeted porn business in particular – but most of it clearly was.) The same argument, however, could not be made about, say, a comedy skit on a sitcom in which jokes are made about someone's high sex drive; maybe it's slut-shaming, but maybe it's self-conscious parody of slut-shaming, or wry commentary on human sexual jealousy, or something else entirely, like an attempt at accurate character development for a character who would be expected to hold a sex-negative view, whatever; "these writers/producers were slut-shaming in this episode" would be OR, based on "I personally feel slut-shamed by it because of the inferences I'm drawing in my own oversensitive imagination about intent in a medium in which the intended implication is often unclear". When students yell "dirty whore!" or "how many cocks did you suck before class today, slut?" at a classmate for having made explicit movies, there is no doubt what the implication is.

  What should really be done, here, is probably re-scoping this article slightly to be about harassment and denigration on the basis of someone's open sexuality [or whatever; I'm not really trying to wordsmith this right now], and not that it's commonly called "slut-shaming" while more academically referred to as [cite various things from gender studies, etc., journals here]. Don't focus the the labeling, include it as a minor point. This is not really an article about a neologism, and we don't need one, per WP:NOTDICT, unless the very word itself, not just the concept it describes, is notable (e.g., as is the case with "truthiness"). "Slut-shaming" is not notable as a term the way "truthiness" is. To put it another way, we should have this article even if the term "slut-shaming" had never been invented. It's only at this name because of the application, and quite possibly misapplication, of WP:COMMONNAME. If the article were more tightly focused on the concept and how RS conceptualize it, there's less room for OR to happen, and less question whether it is happening in any given case. PS: Sorry this is long. Please don't reply to it here but in the Discussion section; ping me and I'll be happy to address any disputes people might have with the several points raised, but a big block of indented back-and-forth won't be helpful at this spot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot It seems to me that although we need to be very careful to avoid original research, using a definition which says "sources must use the term "slut-shaming" to be included here" is far too restrictive. The phenomenon we describe as "slut-shaming" today has evolved, and our understanding of it, and the terminology used to describe it, has evolved, just like any other sociological phenomenon. To address the question of scope, in my view the article needs to be about the concept: we cannot create an article discussing the use of a common term, that is likely going to end up as an indiscriminate collection of information. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I see no other term for this topic. Without sticking or mainly sticking to sources that explicitly identify the matter as slut-shaming, we are going to end up with an indiscriminate collection of information. I replied further below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. If we were discussing a neutral, technical term to describe a concept, I'd be more open to an inclusive approach to sources that don't specifically use the term. However, "slut-shaming" is an extremely strongly emotionally loaded term, with a strong implied intent to condemn the behavior/attitudes it describes. My concern is that there are almost certainly going to be sources that describe and investigate behavior which "slut-shaming" seems to encompass, but whose authors may take a neutral stance towards. Some of these authors may even object to the term, or even if they don't object to the term AND are critical of the behaviors they are describing, if asked, they might not agree that the behaviors they are describing rise to the level of being called called "slut-shaming". So, because "slut-shaming" is such an emotionally loaded term, I think if we represent sources as describing slut-shaming when they have not explicitly used the term, not only are we in danger of of violating the prohibition against Synthesis, we also may be in danger of violating the Neutral Point of View policy. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• It depends Came here via RfC. Quick skim of this discussion section, the one specific source I can find that is in dispute is this one: [8]. I see no reason to rule out using it absolutely. It seems more relevant to this article than, say, the article on Sexual repression. I think slut-shamming and sexual repression are distinct but related concepts, and having separate articles for them isn't a POV fork. That said, some care does need to be taken to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. Can anyone point me to a diff of the article where this source was being used? Or diffs with other sources that are in dispute? Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• tentative No as in it would not be synthesis. However the article must be unambiguously about slut-shaming so you must already have secondary sources, defining slut shaming, that make it clear the topic of the article you intend to include does cover the same topic area. This is not a matter of broad interpretation but of strict definitions. It doesn't matter that the article uses the term "Slut-Shaming" but it does matter that the topic is identifiable as slut-shaming. Best case scenario is that Article A says within it that it is talking about slut-shaming. Next best is that Articles B&C says that Article A is talking about slut shaming. Lowest acceptable scenario is that Article A discusses a topic and Article B gives a definition of the scope of slut shaming that absolutely encapsulates the relevant parts of Article A. Unacceptable would be Article A discusses a topic which looks like slut shaming and Editor C thinks it is about slut shaming. SPACKlick (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It is absolutely a WP:SYN violation to use sources that do not explicitly state in the text that it is about "slut-shaming". I recommend tagging all of the SYN violations with the tag {{Synthesis-inline}} and then delete. There is no logical reason to allow WP:original research to stay in mainspace. The sources must make the claim (not the editor). This is like putting unsupported claims in the cited source's mouth. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Change the title There is desire to have an article about this concept by whatever name. The term "slut-shaming" has always caused problems. Find the neutral name for the concept and make "slut-shaming" a redirect to the article on the concept. Part of the problem is that "slut-shaming" can be a technical term for a certain kind of shaming around sexual practices. Alternate names - "Sexuality shaming", "Sexuality discrimination" "Sex negativity", "sex shaming". The modern term "slut-shaming" is claimed by a social movement and carries connotation which is more narrow than this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If the title was changed then all the text about "slut-shaming" may not be about the new title. The text that is not about "slut-shaming" can be moved to another article or a new article can be started for the text that is not about "slut-shaming". QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Leaning toward yes it's synth. I typically take a rather hard line on OR and think that the sources need to make any links for us. I am flexible if a single concept has many disciplines discussing it with different terms, but those other terms are not notable or independent enough to have their own articles. In this case, we have many related terms, all of which are related to or overlap with slut shaming (e.g., sexual repression, Madonna-whore dichotomy, etc.) So in this case, I think it's best to only focus on things explicitly called slut shaming by sources, link to related stuff in the prose or see also list, and put the related but not explicitly connected stuff in their respective articles.

Another point to add, brought up by SMcCandlish above, is that there's the term and the concept. SMcCandlish says we can address them separately, but I think in this case it's hard to remove the term, its creation, and the movements, people, and cultural context that creation took place with from the older more broad idea it represents. As such, I think we should keep the sources and the coverage of the term more contemporaneous as it's a modern take on an old thing. We have articles on past takes of this concept, and we should leave those for the more broad scope. Let this article be the more narrow one. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Flyer22 Reborn: I don't particularly care about the outcome of this RfC, but could you clarify whether your position covers the situation I brought up in the previous thread and which was addressed by Rhoark at the noticeboard discussion you started a couple days ago? That is, does it preclude us from referring to a source which another source says is about this topic? --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather listen to what other editors state before I comment on this matter any further. Do you mind moving this (your question and my reply) out of the RfC section and placing it above it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

To go ahead and answer your question, I am not so much concerned about that; I think what I stated above and below in the RfC shows what I am very much concerned about. If a reliable source calls something slut-shaming, I do not see an issue with framing it as slut-shaming...as long as it is given appropriate weight, such as how much text we give it and using WP:In-text attribution when it is the opinion of an author. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is WP:Fringe, I am less inclined to give it space. That goes for any topic on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the sources I listed (Baumeister-Twenge and Vaillancourt) are WP:FRINGE? Also, I moved this back because it impacts the scope of the RfC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering that this is not a part of the RfC and can stifle the RfC per WP:Too long; didn't read, I divided the RfC into "Survey" and "Discussion," as is common. I also went ahead and notified WP:Village pump (policy) to the matter at hand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, what you stated above about OR issues is exactly what I am worried about when it comes to this article. See the #Mate poaching section above and a recent argument by Engleham there; that is a problem. As for alternative names, like I stated in the Survey section, I was not arguing against alternative names; that is not the issue. You stated, "To put it another way, we should have this article even if the term 'slut-shaming' had never been invented. It's only at this name because of the application, and quite possibly misapplication, of WP:COMMONNAME. If the article were more tightly focused on the concept and how RS conceptualize it, there's less room for OR to happen, and less question whether it is happening in any given case." I addressed this matter when I stated, "The fact that there have been sources commenting on the 'social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors' before the term slut-shaming came into existence does not mean that we can validly group all of that material under the term slut-shaming. To do so is to assign a modern word about a modern concept (yes, modern in the sense that sources usually discuss it) and apply it to discussions and concepts that authors of yesteryear probably would not classify as slut-shaming. Furthermore, slut-shaming is not always defined the same way; it is often defined by name-calling, as indicated by this source I cited above, which states, '[S]lut shaming occurs when female victims are called names for deviating from traditional gender expectations, which can include engaging in sexual behaviors, dressing in sexually provocative ways, using birth control, or even being raped or sexually assaulted.' There are many topics about the sexual social stigmas that apply to women; the Social stigma article is for that and all of the other social stigmas. [...] If one wants this article broadened to all sexual social stigmas about women, and any discussion of them, it should be renamed. Even if renamed, there would be editors who feel that 'slut-shaming' should be its own article."

If we are using all types of sources about the "social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors" without the sources being explicitly clear that they are about slut-shaming, we are allowing some synthesis in this article. We are leaving it up to editors to decide what is or isn't slut-shaming, when we should be deferring to whether or not sources identify the aspects as slut-shaming. Having an issue with the term slut-shaming and thinking that the article should be under a different title is one thing; having an article called "Slut shaming" and many sources that are about all types of sexual social stigma without those sources being explicitly clear that they are about slut-shaming is another thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no particular issue with any of that. "We are leaving it up to editors to decide what is or isn't slut-shaming" – this is only an issue because the article is focused on the word instead of on the topic of 'social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors'. Maybe that is actually too broad and vague (it could go all the way back to pre-history) and should be narrowed. We don't see to have a great deal of difficulty creating and scoping articles like hate speech, hate crime, discrimination, genocide, homophobia, etc., despite that all of these, too, could either a) be defined so broadly that we expect them to cover everything that possibly could be related, in every culture, back to the dawn of humanity, resulting in probably a useless article, or b) excessive focus on one specific term like "racial slur", "lynching", "segregation", "ethnic cleansing", or "gay-bashing" and whether some event or some issue addressed in social science literature qualifies for that exact label. So, basically, I'm arguing that the exact term "slut-shaming" should probably be a section in a broader article that is constrained in similar ways as those others, being tied to how the social sciences are addressing them, and perhaps with a history section relating them, when the literature does so, with ancient history or tribal culture, but remaining focused on modern, industrialized society. I agree that 'having an article called "Slut shaming" and many sources that are about all types of sexual social stigma without those sources being explicitly clear that they are about slut-shaming' is problematic, but this problem is one of our own devising and is essentially illusory. I'm extremely skeptical that the term slut-shaming is itself notable; it's just a recent, cute neologism for something that has received serious academic attention for at least a couple of generations now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, looking at the current state of the article, I don't see that it's mostly about the word. This isn't a word article like Slut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

But some people are treating it like it is, thus the present disputation. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are including me in "some people," I am not treating it like a term article. I am focusing on the term slut-shaming to identify the topic for valid reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, on Malik Shabazz's talk page, I stated, "I want to also note that I don't have a problem with sources in the article not using the word slut-shaming if the sources are used appropriately and if there are other reliable sources referring to the aspect as slut-shaming." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Which seems right back to treating this as an article about the specific text string slut-shaming. Sources could come up with 23 different terms for this and we could still have one article on the concept if the sources make it clear it's the same topic. It's also routine for WP to merge into one article various allegedly separate topics that, from an encyclopedic perspective, cannot be clearly distinguished. See, e.g., Feminism and Men's rights movement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The research study conducted for the book "Why Women Have Sex", which I linked to upthread is a verifiable source for defining slut shaming, and slut shaming driven by mate poaching. The mate-poaching phrase "You stole my boyfriend, you slut" is as much a part of the common dialogue as "Have a nice day". No need for hair splitting over the perfectly obvious. Engleham (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The source you cited doesn't at all state that mate poaching is a form of slut-shaming. It uses the terms slut-shaming and mate poaching independently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, Caeciliusinhorto and Vanamonde, for the past two days, I looked for sources that define slut-shaming the way that the term slut-shaming does, and I have not come across any other term for the matter. Slut-shaming is indeed the common term for this topic. Without that term identifying the topic, the topic could be about any form of sexual social stigma applying to women. And believe me, there is a lot out there about sexual social stigma applied to women. It is not accurate to throw all of this under the title of "slut-shaming", which I sense will indeed happen if this type of "we don't have to go by sources that explicitly identify it as slut-shaming" synthesis is allowed. Like I told Vanamonde93 above, "without sticking or mainly sticking to sources that explicitly identify the matter as slut-shaming, we are going to end up with an indiscriminate collection of information." And like I told Caeciliusinhorto above, "there are sources that define slut-shaming differently. And what is slut-shaming is open to interpretation, including the aforementioned mate poaching example. If we let even a margin of synthesis in, the floodgates will have opened for all types of other synthesis. I cannot tell you how many Wikipedia articles I have seen this type of thing happen at. This is not a matter of easily identifying what is violence. And, ideally, for the Gay bashing article, the sources should usually use the term gay bashing or similar to keep out synthesis. I've seen LGBT people disagree on what is gay bashing."

This type of free-for-all is constantly happening at the Sexism article because people have different interpretations about what is sexism, including that circumcision is sexism. Do see this WP:OR discussion. Do you really think that type of thing won't happen at this article?

SMcCandlish mentioned the Feminism and Men's rights movement articles. From what I see, here and here, those two articles mainly stick to sources that use the terms feminism and men's rights (or MRM) to identify the topic. If it didn't, those articles would be huge messes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We have many thousands of articles on topics with more than one known name, and many more (and a policy segment at WP:DESCRIPTDAB for naming them) on topics that can be encyclopedically covered in a single article but for which there isn't a common name. Ergo, having an article on the general concept of [insert long definition we keep quoting] is a perfectly valid approach, and it's also perfectly fine that the WP:COMMONNAME we settle on for the page is "slut-shaming", without this specific term sharply limiting the content. The problem I see with Flyer22's position on this is that the conceptual approach to what is presently often called slut-shaming (i.e., coverage in RS) predates that actual term, which is a fairly recent neologism, and not even part of longer-term mainstream feminism and gender studies, but something that came with the rise of the public Internet, a play on "fat-shaming", itself a post-Internet term. I think that's all I need to say here; further explication will be redundant with what I've already posted above, and we all hate circular argumentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, per WP:Content fork, if it's the same topic with a different name, we almost always keep it in the same article. A different name is not the issue. I've been clear about what the issue is, and your comments even highlighted those issues. You stated that "the conceptual approach to what is presently often called slut-shaming (i.e., coverage in RS) predates that actual term." I ask what reliable sources state that? How are we to judge what is slut-shaming, especially for older sources or discussion about sexual social stigma applied to women in ancient times...when it is likely to be inappropriate to call those matters "slut-shaming"? Above, you even stated, "It can still, definitely and commonly, be OR to identify questionable cases, or to extend the definition to apply to somewhat similar things, or to label as slut-shaming something that may have multiple rationales or explanations. This kind of distinction is always going to hold true for any socio-political concept, and the burden is always going to be on showing that it's not OR, rather than on proving that it is, when any WP:AEIS might be involved, beyond 'analyzing and interpreting' reliable source material enough to summarize the gist of its relevant parts into Wikipedia-toned content, 'evaluating' the source's reliability, and 'synthesizing' multiple sources in non-novel ways to massage our content into parseable sentences and paragraphs. For things like this topic, it is important to remember WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. WP is not the place to exhaustively catalogue everything that might be slut-shaming; our article on that topic does not need a large pile of examples, it only needs to make it clear what the concept is, explain what the sources say about it, and provide enough sourced examples to elucidate." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We're just talking past each other. "How are we to judge what is slut-shaming ..." is just right back to trying to define this topic by what the label is rather than by the meaning of the topic, by what sources say is within the scope, which taken together is presently given this overarching label by some sources (mostly rather informal ones; few academic works use this term, even if it's common overall). Look at it another way. If we had an article on "common cardiovascular medical issues in canines", and the common name was "dog heart disease", the article might be at the latter name. If sources tell us that a particular medical issue is common in canines, and that it is cardiovascular, we can and should include it in that article, even if specific sources put another classifying label on it ("circulatory disorders of canids", "heart health problems of dogs most frequently treated at veterinary clinics", etc., etc.), or no classifying label at all.

Earlier, you wrote: "I see no other term for this topic. Without sticking or mainly sticking to sources that explicitly identify the matter as slut-shaming, we are going to end up with an indiscriminate collection of information." The topic does not have to have any term at all; it only has to have a clear definition. It does; we've quoted the lengthy thing several times already. The article will not be a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem, because a) the scope is clear, and b) we have that policy which-permits us to remove any off-topic additions of trivia, plus the NOR policy which has us delete attempts to WP:AEIS something to seem to fit within the scope when it really does not. If your fears were well-founded, all of our thousands of articles on topics of a complex, shifting, and sometimes subjective nature would be hopeless wrecks. There is nothing magically special about this article.

The statement that started the thread above this – the idea tha prompted you to start this RfC was this: "Actually I'm finding that recent papers are referring to earlier literature on suppression of female sexuality as examples of slut-shaming." That is still the crux of the matter. The OR problem here is actually in trying to deny that the sources that use the term today are already including what you want to exclude, and are applying it retroactively as a new (and rather politicized/activistic) label to an old and broad topic of inquiry. You would artificially limit the scope to only the novel material in recent sources that happens to use that term, and this is your own analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the meaning and intent of those sources, and clearly not a correct one.

If I have not been able to get these points across is all the above wording over the last week, I won't be able to get it across by continuing to re-re-re-explain this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, yes, it seems we are talking past each other. Somewhat anyway. Given the issues that you, I and others have highlighted with regard to not sticking to sources that explicitly use the term slut-shaming to identify the topic, I don't see how anyone can think that allowance of such sourcing will work at this article. It could occasionally work, but, as already pointed out, the addition(s) in those cases should be subject to intense scrutiny. This "we don't have to go by sources that explicitly identify the topic by using the term for that topic" thing generally does not work at sociopolitical articles like this one, which is why I pointed to the Sexism article as an example. The Sexism article has been rife with WP:Original research, especially of the WP:Synthesis variety, because editors have different interpretations of what "is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender." The Rape culture article would be a huge WP:OR mess if we stated, "Okay, we're going to allow content based on what editors view is 'a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality' instead of mainly sticking to sources that identify the topic with the word rape culture." You keep having an issue with the term slut-shaming, but that is the name for this topic. I see no other names for it. And since that is the case, what qualifies as slut-shaming is very much open to interpretation if not going by sources that use the term slut-shaming. It is not artificially limiting the scope of an article to stick to sources that identify the topic as being that topic. Not unless one is being unreasonable about a matter that is clearly slut-shaming without the sources calling it slut-shaming. But even what is clearly slut-shaming can be a matter of disagreement, as is clear by Engleham's arguments for inclusion of "mate poaching." There will be more examples like that if we state that what is slut-shaming is going to be a matter for editors to decide when sources don't use the term slut-shaming. You stated "If your fears were well-founded, all of our thousands of articles on topics of a complex, shifting, and sometimes subjective nature would be hopeless wrecks." We have plenty of articles that are wrecks because of this free-for-all interpretation of WP:Verifiability. Really, I'd be interested to know how one thinks this would work in the case of the Rape culture article. You mentioned a medical aspect, but I don't see any of our medical articles allowing such interpretation. For our medical articles, we go by sources that identify the topic with the term, or alternative term, for that topic. And, really, that is how Wikipedia generally works, which is why when sources are used for a topic without those sources identifying the topic by name, the content is routinely labeled as original research or synthesis by our editors (including our experienced editors); I've seen countless disputes and discussions of that nature, which is why I cannot support all of what you are stating. I'm not sure what you meant by "The OR problem here is actually in trying to deny that the sources that use the term today are already including what you want to exclude." I'm not wanting to exclude anything but possible synthesis.

You stated, "If I have not been able to get these points across is all the above wording over the last week, I won't be able to get it across b continuing to re-re-re-explain this." I feel the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Rape culture" is a very recent (post-Internet, post-Millennials) concept, not a subject of several generations' worth of academic study to which a new neologistic label has been applied outside the academic literature, so the comparison isn't valid or useful. The fact that some articles are wrecks is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, and does nothing to address the fact that if your fears were well-founded all or most of our articles on complex socio-political matters would be wrecks. A slippery slope argument like you are making is clearly fallacious when the cause does not in fact predictably lead to the feared effect. Very few of such articles are wrecks, even the most controversial ones, like Race (human categorization). When any of them do get that way, they tend to lead to ArbCom cases, topic bans, and rapid post-ban cleanup. I.e., the problem is uncommon, easily resolvable, and not predictable, thus it is not systemic much less foreordained.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, again, we have to disagree. If my fears were not well-founded, this RfC would be full of arguments only supporting the "not synth" view. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERCONTENT can be a valid or invalid argument. Rape culture, which is as much a feminist concept and new area of research as slut-shaming, is the perfect comparison. You make it seem like slut-shaming has been an area of research for a long time. It has not been. Social stigma applied to people, especially women and girls, who are perceived to violate traditional expectations for sexual behaviors existed before the term slut-shaming, but it encompasses a lot of topics and a number of those topics are not called "slut-shaming" by the authors. A lot of those topics do not only deal with girls and women. They deal with the sexual norms of society as a whole. "Slut-shaming" is a recent area of research and recent area of activism that is meant to challenge sexual norms, and it is mainly about girls and women. I repeat, "You keep having an issue with the term slut-shaming, but that is the name for this topic. I see no other names for it. And since that is the case, what qualifies as slut-shaming is very much open to interpretation if not going by sources that use the term slut-shaming. It is not artificially limiting the scope of an article to stick to sources that identify the topic as being that topic. Not unless one is being unreasonable about a matter that is clearly slut-shaming without the sources calling it slut-shaming. But even what is clearly slut-shaming can be a matter of disagreement."

Race (human categorization) is a poor comparison. That article goes by what WP:Reliable sources state race is or is not. That article is on my watchlist and I see debates at Talk:Race (human categorization). Editors stick to sources about racism, and most of those sources use the term racism. Most of the socio-political articles here go by what the sources state the topic is or is not. All of these articles include sources that specifically use the term to identify the topic at hand, and the articles are mainly made up of such sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If we're agreeing to disagree, that's fine. I don't think further circular discussion will be useful to anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Term applied to non-females

Although the term "slut shaming" seems to have been coined to apply to females, the concept is applied in literature in discussions of general promiscuity in studies on all genders. I would like to see this article developed more in the direction of "society's shaming actions to discourage promiscuity" rather than just papers using the term "slut shaming", because that is kind of a neologism being applied to topic already well covered. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur. At the least, the first sentence should be modified to change "women" to "people." 50.12.57.79 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article no longer uses the term "women" at all, but your point is well-taken; the article still overemphasizes the slut-shaming of women and girls nearly to the point of implying that it doesn't happen to men and boys. As an outspoken sex-positive and non-monogamous male, I have been subjected to slut-shaming all my life, as has everyone, even prudes--that's what makes them prudish. The article's wording needs to be changed throughout to make it clear that, while females are more subject to slut-shaming than are males, everyone is targeted. It might also be a good idea to acknowledge somewhere in the article that there are more than two genders, and every gender is subject to negative conditioning about sex, i.e., slut-shaming. Dixon Wragg (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article currently uses the words "especially a woman." And that is correct because the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources apply/discuss this term with regard to girls and women, especially women (just like the term slut is usually applied to girls and women, especially women); we are supposed to follow the WP:Due weight policy on this matter and give more weight to the female aspect, including in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, while I accept than in terms of numbers more women are slut shamed than men, I do wonder whether your perspective may be coloured by your own sex/gender/sexual orientation. There are lots of gay/bi men out there (we're more than just a few % that conservatives would have you think) and slut shaming is pretty normal in that community. On top of that the alleged "promiscuity" of gay men is something gay men get constantly criticised for by many heterosexuals. The emphasis of the article implies that slut-shaming is basically a female experience. As an analogy: more doctors or engineers are male than female, but we'd get in trouble for writing articles that implicitly assume that an engineer is going to be a man or that medicine is a man's world. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Too heavily female-orientated

The article shows a strong heterosexual bias by focusing so strongly on women. I recognise that more women than men are victims of slut-shaming, however as a gay man this is just as commonplace. Perhaps the article needs to mention men throughout and more than just in passing. Perhaps introduce the section about gay men more towards the beginning, not right at the end, which reinforces once again slut-shaming as a female experience. This also reinforces the notion (unintentionally) that it's women who are "sluts". 121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This article: http://www.dailyxtra.com/world/news-and-ideas/news/medical-students-want-give-prep-the-wrong-people-210922 illustrates how slut-shaming attitudes affect the medical care gay men receive from heterosexual doctors 121.73.7.84 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

See the WP:Due weight policy. The article is more heavily focused on women (and girls) because the literature on "slut" and "slut-shaming" is more heavily focused on women (and girls). Predominantly, in fact. Moving the "Among gay men" section up higher would be a WP:Due weight violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Government sanctioned slut shaming

I added a paragraph about how Western governments routinely slut shame females who travel, but another editor reverted the edit stating it had "no clear relation to the topic". There is already a section in the article about how government-run schools in Western countries single our females for scrutiny: "Certain dress code restrictions in schools across North America are believed to be perpetuating sexist standards, since they concentrate specifically on females and what they are and are not allowed to wear." I extended the example to include how these same Western governments single out female travelers and advise them to "dress conservatively" and "behave discreetly". I hope this explains the very clear relation to this topic. Thanks. Rolia98 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it. Adding that was WP:SYN - you need a reliable source saying that this kind of travellers advice is an instance of slut-shaming. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYN is not applicable. In my edit I gave three examples of how Western governments specifically advise women to "dress conservatively" and "behave discreetly". This certainly meets the definition of slut shaming outlined in the lead of the article: "examples of circumstances where women are 'slut-shamed' include violating dress code policies by dressing in perceived sexually provocative ways". User:Jytdog, are you implying that when a Western government tells a teen girl to cover up at her prom, that's slut shaming, but when that same government tells her to cover up when traveling abroad, that's "travel advice"? We definitely need to hear from other editors on this one. Rolia98 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please bring a reliable source that shows that what you are saying is accepted knowledge. That is the essence of WP:V and at this point the WP:BURDEN is 100% on you to bring a source. This is not ambiguous from a policy perspective - please bring a reliable source supporting what you are saying about travel advisories. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources were used in my edit to support the thesis outlined in the lead of the article, per WP:SYN. Please specifically explain how my edit was original research, what "new thesis" was introduced, and how it was not verified by the sources provided. Please answer my question specifically, and if you are not able to, then revert the edit. Thanks for your cooperation. Rolia98 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that says that government travel advisories are slut shaming? Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with Jytdog; see the #RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming? section above, where there is extensive discussion about this type of sourcing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with jytdog, no citation. AksheKumar (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

New content re feminist history

User:Mngant please explain what this content, copied below, has to do with the topic of this article:

Rebecca Walker, named by Time magazine as one of America's most influential leaders under forty, is a co founder of third-wave feminism and extreme activist. Walker attended Yale University where she graduated cum laude in 1992. Although she grew up in a split household, both her mother and father were active participants in the Civil Rights Movement; sparking her passion for activism at an early age. She is also the co-founder of the Third Wave Foundation - the only nationally recognized philanthropic organization dedicated to serving women between ages fifteen and thirty years old.

The Civil Rights Movement sparked the rise of activism in the South when large groups of white women raised their voices to challenge patriarchy. Even though white feminists claimed black southern women like Rosa Parks and Daisy Bates to be their role models, the movement consisted of primarily white women to begin with.

References

I am still unclear on exactly what the promotional description: "the only nationally recognized philanthropic organization dedicated to serving women between ages fifteen and thirty years old", means. But that is separate from the WP:OFFTOPIC issue.

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I have not heard about women's organizations excluding anyone over 30-years-old. The claim of uniqueness sounds plausible. Otherwise I do not see what Rebecca Walker has to do with slut-shaming. Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's off-topic, it should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)