Talk:YesAllWomen
Latest comment: 7 years ago by 2001:8003:8030:C700:554C:A45D:22A8:C75D in topic 1 in 1 women will be raped
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with 2014 Isla Vista killings on 10 June, 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Cartoon Controversy edit
I think this entire section lends undue weight to something only tangibly related to the article. I've added an undue tag, but I think it should be removed (with only 1 or 2 sentence mention elsewhere in the article). I'd welcome others' thoughts - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- There's not really even enough material there for it to be its own section or even subsection, even if expanded. The entire section is four sentences; I doubt there would be issues integrating it somewhere else as a sentence or two. Rhydic (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is properly referenced via reliable sources and specifically related to the hashtag. This objection seems more like "I don't like it", but that the hashtag inspired cartoons which were controversial and perhaps offensive to some is on topic and belongs in the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- my issue is that I don't think it warrants its own section. I think that it would be best left as a sentence or two instead of a stand alone section. Do you disagree BoboMeowCat? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I merged it into the above section "Reach and Impact".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not what I had in mind, but a definite improvement all the same. Cheers, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. This article is about the hastag, so this material is relevant. It's not about the Rodger murders, or about sexism and anti-sexism in general, where it would be undue weight. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I merged it into the above section "Reach and Impact".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- my issue is that I don't think it warrants its own section. I think that it would be best left as a sentence or two instead of a stand alone section. Do you disagree BoboMeowCat? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is properly referenced via reliable sources and specifically related to the hashtag. This objection seems more like "I don't like it", but that the hashtag inspired cartoons which were controversial and perhaps offensive to some is on topic and belongs in the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1 in 1 women will be raped edit
The article says that the entirety of women are harassed by the presumed entirety of men. No doubt feminist believe that sexism is something all individual men do to all individual women and therefor feminist want women to fell weak and vulnerable, even though the vast majority aren't and neither are most men sexual predictors.--2001:8003:801D:2100:4C21:CF1F:4A31:93DA (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like a response.--2001:8003:8030:C700:554C:A45D:22A8:C75D (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)