Talk:MeToo movement

Latest comment: 12 days ago by 2601:646:8000:B7B0:7D6A:C71B:B254:A301 in topic Proposed merge of Weinstein effect into MeToo movement

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Merged content from Believe women to here. Believe woman article seems to be a sub-slogan of the MeeToo movement, and has much less coverage. Might as well merge here and create a section with the content, we do not appear to have length problems. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: where would it go/what would we say about it? It's at least not obvious to me where it would make sense to fit the content in that article in. Endwise (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Endwise: At Believe women I read that "Believe women" is an American political slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement". Thus I would add it somewhere as a section or sub-section. For example I did this diff (and later reverted) as an example. Note my edit is still quite crudely implemented, but I think it can show at least the idea. I have no position if it be added as a main section, or as a sub-section with the #HimToo, I just saw the easiest fit there when I did it today. My merger proposal is not based on any particular merge location in the article, that I am somewhat indifferent to. I just dont see a stand-alone notability of the Believe Woman article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Jtbobwaysf: That looks good to me. You have my blessing!   Endwise (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose merge. The notability of the phrase is demonstrated in the article, and there is no need to merge. This proposal seems predicated on the deletion of a lot of sourced material. StAnselm (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
That is a false statement and is directly contradicted by the my statement above (06:55, 17 January 2023). This proposes to merge content and create a new section and you would have read that above (assuming you read it before making a comment). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Believe women is distinct enough to have its own article Roma enjoyer (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.

This article doesn't link to Tarana Burke

edit (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes it does. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

2023 Israel–Hamas war connection?


There is no proof or sufficient and true evidence to prove that infarct people (women)at the Re'im festival were raped or sexually assaulted or harassed Agirlwithabrain (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not commenting on this claim specifically, but I also wanted to add that this change has been contested in the edit history (removed for being "unsubstantiated propaganda that is irrelevant to this movement" and then reinstated for being "whitewashing"). Additionally, this section really doesn't belong in the "Timeline" section and should really be in the "Criticism" section (if it belongs on the page at all). Bluedime777 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not seeing the relevance of this Israel-Hamas war material. Last night it was reinserted by administrator User:K6ka as "whitewashing". This was not blanking as vandalism, given the edit summary "Removed unsubstantiated propaganda that is irrelevant to this movement." In what way does a terrorist attack have to do with the insidious and relentless peacetime culture of sexual violence, sexual assault and rape culture? The assertion is that MeToo (which is a loose association of survivors, not a monolithic organization) hasn't made a statement? How is this WP:Due? Obviously everyone should stand against sexual assault no matter the setting, but IMHO this marginally-related assertion (that MeToo hasn't issued an appropriate statement) is something somebody drummed up. I think this should be discussed before reinsertion. I object to its reinsertion unless much better supported. I rarely work in the field of Israel/Palestine relations, and I don't think this article has anything to do with long-standing hostilities in the Middle East. Insertion of such undue material seems intended to subtract focus from the very real sexual abuse and sexual exploitation in peacetime settings taking place this very day. BusterD (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I also don't see the relevance, but more importantly, the cited sources don't actually seem to support this. The cited sources almost entirely discuss only individual NGOs (mostly UN Women), with no coverage of "the #MeToo movement" as a whole. The only one that does is the Times of Israel piece, which while not unreliable, is most definitely a biased source on this topic. But even then, it doesn't actually *support* the content of the section. It says that a development associate with the #MeToo movement [ed. presumably defined as] said a statement would be forthcoming on October 7th, that the initial statement on November 13 makes no mention of Israel, Israeli women or Hamas, but that a clarification published two days later says that it stands by Israeli women, as well. So even then, misleading (sub)headlines aside, it actually says that the MeToo movement was *not* silent on Israel. All this, to me, adds up to an unsourced section that should not be in the article. Writ Keeper  16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I endorse the section removal. As is, this article has a lot of scope and WP:COATRACK issues and needs a significant culling. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is very real evidence and proof of sexual assault and rape during the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. There are first hand witnesses who attested seeing it happen, there are verified statements from medical and burial detail people who prepared bodies for burial, and of course hostage survivors who were returned from captivity in Gaza. To deny it happening is no less a horrific crime than denying the Holocaust, and criticism of the Me Too movement for not acknowledging it and remaining silent after these barbaric crimes by Hamas must be included in this Me Too Movement page! (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
And that's not relevant to #MeToo movement? Drsruli (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Farrow called for a careful examination of each story to guard against false accusations but also recalled the alleged sexual abuse his sister Dylan Farrow claims she went through at the hands of his father Woody Allen."


Considering that he wrote an article explaining that his sister was wrong, this sentence sounds misleading to me. Drsruli (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge of Weinstein effect into MeToo movement


The "Weinstein effect" is almost a synonym for the MeToo Movement and doesn't seem to extend beyond it. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a reasonable nomination, under WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:BROADCONCEPT. I would urge anyone opposing to state clearly how they think the articles' scopes should be defined and what content should go where. Sdkbtalk 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yamout, Dania (December 18, 2017). "The "Harvey Weinstein Effect" vs. The #MeToo Movement". Medium. Moxy🍁 15:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
A tiny obscure medium blog post from a author who last posted five years ago and who revived marginal coverage seems only to strengthen the case here. Remember we aren't here to do WP:SYNTHESIS. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good to see someone gets the point reason for divergences. Support merger. Moxy🍁 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support as well as the two seem to cover the same concept. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Urro[talk][edits]13:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support as well. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. They seem to have the same scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support Additionally, this is simply not a term in use. The content of this page should be under Harvey Weinstein in the metoo movement page. This page suggests that the "metoo movement' and 'Harvey Weinstein effect' are synonymous, but they carry different connotations. Calling the 'metoo movement' the 'Harvey Weinstein effect' takes away the agency from the actual actors of this movement. Lilian VO (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
agree. I also support the merger. (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Same here, though if merged, I think this term should be used a nickname for the movement. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strongly Oppose. It is widely used and is the 2017 #MeToo movement's impact specifically, not the movement itself. I agree with @Isaidnoway that this article is already too long to be useful to readers. In the hopes that it can become a featured article someday in the near future, I propose the content from Metoo movement#Impact be split and merged with the Weinstein effect instead per WP:COMMONTERM. Yes, the name is unfortunate, but the media and academia is littered with its use. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not just the impact, it's the phenomenon of famous or otherwise powerful men suddenly having their power to oppress women in a sexual and discriminatory way taken by the women they've oppressed. #MeToo is generally about women coming forward about the abuse they've faced, so not all of the impact would belong in the Weinstein effect. 2601:805:8780:4D50:EC7F:CD92:B7A:4072 (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply