This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Mantilla, Karla (2015). Gendertrolling: How Misogyny Went Viral. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 29, 33, 34, 75, 77–81, 90, 91, 93, 100, 115, 126. ISBN978-1-4408-3318-2.
McGowan, Dale (2013). Atheism For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 228–229. ISBN978-1-118-50920-3.
Cotter, Christopher R. (2021). "New Atheism". In Bullivant, Stephen; Ruse, Michael (eds.). The Cambridge History of Atheism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1020. doi:10.1017/9781108562324.055. ISBN978-1-0090-4021-1.
Reagle, Joseph M., Jr. (2015). Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 114, 117. ISBN978-0-2620-2893-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Sheedy, Matt (2021). Owning the Secular: Religious Symbols, Culture Wars, Western Fragility. New York: Routledge. p. 88. ISBN978-1-000-45030-9.
Scheidt, Hannah K. (2021). Practicing Atheism: Culture, Media, and Ritual in the Contemporary Atheist Network. Oxford University Press. pp. 73, 90–92, 94–95. ISBN978-0-19-753696-4.
Schnabel, Landon; Facciani, Matthew; Sincoff-Yedid, Ariel; Fazzino, Lori (2016). "Gender and Atheism: Paradoxes, Contradictions, and an Agenda for Future Research". In Cipriani, Roberto; Garelli, Franco (eds.). Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion, Volume 7: Sociology of Atheism. Brill. pp. 81–82. doi:10.1163/9789004319301_006. ISBN978-90-04-31930-1.
Gallery and stuff
I propose we lose the gallery completely. All of the images are old and none of them really add anything. Also we should try to get a more up to date image for the head of the article. The 2011 image can move down to the elevator incident section if we want to keep it at all.
We should also mention her current activities. She has a science/comedy/quiz podcast called Quiz-o-Tron which looks like it is notable enough to mention briefly but not to cover in depth. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the gallery. I also swapped the images around so that the 2012 image is at the top. It's not great but it is better than it was. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elevatorgate
I've changed the heading of the "Elevator incident" section to "Elevatorgate", which is what this is usually called in the media and other reliablesources. To me, "Elevator incident" sounds vague and nefarious, whereas the "-gate" suffix connotes more of an overblown public reaction (see List of "-gate" scandals). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an overblown reaction. It only seems so, because the main incident remains curiously missing (for nearly a decade!). Where’s the evidence? check it backwards. “Dear Muslima” was a comment on a blog post by PZ Myers titled “Always Name Names”, and that titular name to name was Stef McGraw. And that was, because Watson brought a feud with her into a talk, titled “Rebecca Watson: The Religious Right vs. Every Woman on Earth | CFI Leadership Conference 2011” (see YouTube) where she made severe allegations against McGraw, and more so “people in the audience right now”. Check on YouTube, most happens between minute 12 and 16. So, Dawkins comments on this “name names” thread, but actually writes a sarcastic response to a “Dear Muslima” in effect that she can’t expect help, because western atheist feminists are caught up in first world problems. When asked, he comments moments later that he, too, found it overblown that there was this flame war about a double entendre in a lift. So, Dawkins clearly believes that this flame was about the lift incident nothing-story, even though it moved on to much more severe issues. In reality, there were severe accusations in Watson’s CFI talk, I stress this — you can watch right now — death threats, sexual abuse, rape victims. McGraw and “people in the audience right now” were implicated directly. Watson literally says this, marvel at the slides. But crucially, when the name names discussion happened, the video was not online. Thus, the American movement and attendees there were discussing the severe stuff, while everyone else (including Dawkins) were lagging behind, believing it was about the lift story. Wikipedia engages in a purposefully false story, in part because the incidident was not notable for neutral “Papers of Record” to write about it, and those who did write about it where American feminist sources, often known friends of Watson (e.g. Amanda Marcotte) —Lokkhen (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I concur with the removal of this material. As stated, it's pure trivia based on primary sources. The word defended is an interpretation of the sources themselves, making it original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who added that content. I'm posting it here in case anyone else wishes to offer their opinion of whether or not the quote should be included:
A Wikipedia article about a person is not a list of things that person said. It is closer to a list of those things that person said which have been commented on by reliable sources. Even that is not quite it, but I hope you can see why this subject is not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally written “stealing from big box stores is not a big deal” but character limits made me change it to “fine.” I understand that “fine” is more open to interpretation and could mean “good” instead, but I still figured even if it was read that way no one would really be upset ... Is it morally wrong? Sure. Usually. Maybe. I mean, it depends. But is it a big deal? Absolutely not. It’s fine. Whatever.[5]
If I didn't know any better, Baxter329, I would say you were deliberately quoting that one line out of context in order to make Watson look bad. I'm sure no Wikipedian of your morals would do such a thing, right? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included four separate links to her full statement. Baxter329 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RS coverage of this. Linking different versions of the same transcript adds nothing. There is nothing to cover here. A person said a thing you disagree with. It happens. Please just let it go. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
