Talk:Boobquake/Archive 1

Archive 1

Resources

Jen's blog: http://www.blaghag.com/

Blog post that started it: "In the name of science, I offer my boobs." http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html

Clarifying: "A quick clarification about Boobquake." http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VerballyInsane (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Spelling Error

-Possible Spelling Error - Sedighi - name referenced in the following articles online. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/19/world/main6411387.shtml http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/world/middleeast/20briefs-Iran.html http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inJDPJiXU9k0tYQetNGUhTCNqAcgD9F66BTO0 (Mandy Offenbacher. Please let me know if this is the right place to suggest corrections. This is my first time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auric (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination

This is amazing, this article should be nominated for a "Did You Know?". -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I have now nominated the article. Brian the Editor (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

I've just exchanged emails with Jennifer McCreight, and hope to have a permission confirmed photo for the article soon. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

do we need a photo for that?! Adler (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Need" or not, we've got it. A fine illustration of the intended spirit of the event, I think. Cheers! Infrogmation (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I'm happy with the pic. now. It really helps in the AFD progress! How many women attended her practically?! Any? I think we do not keep articles about only 160,000 facebook Clicks! Adler (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A picture won't change its notability. -RomeW (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

fine? sets a bad example with regards to safety goggle use.©Geni 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the photo inclusion, as a matter of fact what I think this page needs is an image gallery. Lol. Aaron Bowen (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I Cannot Believe...

I cannot believe that something so ridiculous, trivial, unnoteworthy, and Junior High School juvenile could be selected as a featured article in a serious encyclopedic internet site.

The Wikipedia owner, CEO, board of directors, etc. need to get off their (excuuuuse me) fat asses, yes, fat asses, and take professional control of quality assurance for this critically important daily feature of the most critically important site in all of the Internet.

The owner, CEO, board of directors, etc. are being negligent, and they need to reverse professional course and rededicate themselves to making this site a continuously better place.

Instead they are allowing it to be continuously degraded by frivolous subjects authored by the perpetually adolescent such as this stupid, yes, stupid, "boobquake" article.

"Boobquake" might have a place on a soft porn site catering to the arrestedly developed, but it has no place at Wikipedia, which is supposed to cater to the intellectually earnest, I think. --NCDane (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents. I like to think of Wikipedia as a resource. When someone comes across a term or name or reference of something that they might not otherwise understand, I believe that there should be a WP article to guide them. If six months or two years from now, someone comes across the term "Boobquake" I should like to think that they would come here for a definitive understanding of what the heck that is/was. It was a real event. It was widely reported. If the term still has currency in the future, then it will have withstood the test of time, been a "Notable" event, and be fully justified in being enshrined in the annals of human knowledge that is Wikipedia.

Personally, I find much of professional sports, even including the Olympics, to be frivolous. Nonetheless I expect that there should be extensive coverage of that area of human activity simply because people are interested and they should be able to turn to Wikipedia as their resource on that topic, too.

In short, I expect that Wikipedia should provide knowledge to all who seek it, maintaining a reputation for factuality, but not necessarily appealing only to the "intellectually earnest." The causally curious deserve the right to drink from the same Wikipedian Well of Knowledge as those with nasal passages more loftily raised. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 23:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eliyahu S. Also, this article is by no means featured, or anywhere close to it. It was a DYK. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge, and it should stay that way. This does not degrade Wikipedia. It adds knowledge. Anything may be viewed as "adolescent" or "frivolous". That is a matter of opinion. Enough said. Airplaneman ✈ 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Male Spectators

They were there to assist in the mocking of Seddiqi? Really? I had no idea wikipedians were really that obtuse, reference or no. The reference cited even supports my claim; the one graduate student they interviewed purported that most of the men were there to gawk and nothing either. I would like to remove this last bit of misleading text; it suggests that all men were there to participate in the event, wherein more likely there were just there to get their jollies from a bit of skin.

Who are you? Please type -~~~~ after your post so we know who are and can verify that you might have actually been there to see what you did.-RomeW (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is Jennifer McCreight, founder of boobquake. Won't edit the page since I'm obviously biased, but I just wanted to add that almost all of the men that attended the event at West Lafayette were personal friends of mine who came out to support us. If you don't believe this is me, feel free to email me to verify (address is on my blog). Thanks! - Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.123.29 (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you, Jennifer, more than I do with the original commenter. The original comment sounds like a "weasel" comment meant to undermine the achievements of the event.-RomeW (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable

Is this even notable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Coverage in the Daily Mail and Vanity Fair makes me think so. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to that, this page lists examples of press coverage in India, Australia, and Canada, as well as some fairly respectable news agencies from across the United States. Brian the Editor (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was also on CNN and FOX, as well as mentioned on the Colbert Report VerballyInsane 17:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

So it got some media attention. But I doubt it will have any lasting significance. How is this not just news? Also, consider WP:EVENT. ETA: I'd prod it but I know it would be contested. Anyone interested in putting it up for AfD? I do believe there's a case for deletion.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm willing to wait a little bit before bringing up the case to see if it actually takes hold, though I doubt it. -RomeW (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RomeW, we should wait and see if this establishes its notability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, we'll also have to monitor Kazem Seddiqi, whose article is essentially only tied to this event. -RomeW (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It has also received international coverage in many different languages, which makes it more likely to be notable. WP:EVENT: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." (Emphasis in original.) Also, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. Thanks for listening to my rambling! =) VerballyInsane 03:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So did Christina Desforges (of the "OMG, peanut butter kiss of death!" fame) but her article also fell to WP:NOTNEWS, see the AfD. The issue here is lasting impact, and once the dust settles, I think there's a good chance for a successful AfD here.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Boobquake" would be significant if it elicited some kind of change, like Iran changing its policies or clerics starting to rethink their ideas of female immodesty. I don't see that happening. Iran and countries like it have a million Seddiqi's, and it won't be long before another one of them says something in the same vein as Seddiqi or worse. Yeah, it received a lot of international coverage, but it was of the type of "oh, this is a fun little story". Life will move on and nothing will come of this. -RomeW (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Put the "orphan" tag. Not a lot of links to this page.-RomeW (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe someone else some time ago tried to say "I'll wait to see what happens before AfD," to which another user responded "it is either notable now, or AfD." THe idea being you can't make a page about something before it's noteworthy - that's senseless. I should make a page about myself and wait to see if I become noteworthy. 99.245.62.92 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point!!! I'm sure Boobquake was a fun event, and with a good idea behind it, but I doubt that it merits an encyclopedia article.PurpleChez (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for an event to establish notability is not senseless. The relevant guideline states, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." I agree with those who have decided to be patient. Brian the Editor (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article absolutely has relevance beyond that of a simple news story, on several levels. First off, it is a remarkable, and well documented case of internet based activism and it spread like wild fire. Secondly, it is an important event marking the emergence of open, mainstream atheism. This may be one seemingly insignificant event now, but in the long run I think it will be seen as one of the earliest events in the movement of equal right for atheists, and atheism becoming more commonly accepted. I am sure the Rosa Parks bus incident was a minor incident at the time too, but given it's timing, and the way times were changing at the time of that event, it bears encyclopedic merit, as does boobquake. Tadpole256 (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, this wasn't related to atheism. While Jen is atheist and started a club for it at her university, this was not related to it. =) VerballyInsane 07:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Category:Atheism has now been added and removed from this article 8 times. Editors have been bold, they've been reverted, and now I think that before this escalates into an all-out edit war, we should have a calm and WP:CIVIL discussion to decide the best way to accurately explain the relation between atheism and this event.

I'll start things off by saying that I agree that atheism did have some influence, and I have recently edited the article to mention this. Regarding the category though, I don't think that we need to use the atheism category every time someone who happens to be atheist does something.

Now let's hear what other editors think. Should atheism be given more, less, or the same amount of attention as what I've described? Brian the Editor (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories can make life very difficult. There's no half way, it's either in or out. This article is possibly of interest to atheists and may be related to atheism, but the subject isn't limited to that field. I haven't commented so far on this issue because I don't think it matters and there are reasonable arguments both ways. On balance I'd probably include the category. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My take on it is along the line of Brian's. Although the movement's founder is Atheist, it was not her primary motivation; as far as I know, this was more of a protest in defense of women's rights (specifically clothing and dress). If someone can prove me wrong by providing a reliable source stating outright that this movement was started in defense of or because of Atheism, I suggest adding the category. Otherwise, I do not think this event has enough to do with Atheism to justify the addition of the category. Airplaneman ✈ 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The founder is an Atheist, but the event is not specifically Atheist. Category does not belong on the article. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

B-class check

Could someone check for B-class please? Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture References

Just thought I'd mention that that both webcomics Something Positive [1] and Girls With Slingshots [2] did comics about this event. --Auric (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Fallout

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/ 71.212.250.193 (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed blatant editorializing and NPOV violation

About the CEMB being "deeply Islamophobic" and some retarded rant about "secular fundamentalists"-- shit belongs on a religious site, but not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.96.4 (talk • contribs) 23:06, October 25, 2012‎

Yes, some content was added recently that should probably be pruned back, probably even more than what you just did (with which I agree). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist?

This event was trivial, not notable. The only reason some news organizations picked up on it was because of the oddity and luridness of it all. This is a "News of the Weird"-level event and not something worthy of a Wikipedia article (that has been puffed-up to try to justify its existence). 67.233.245.55 (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The event was widely reported in the press at the time, as can be seen from the numerous sources cited in the article itself. A quick Google for "boobquake 2011" shows that (despite Jen McCreight's blog entry for 26/4/11 being about why she doesn't want to repeat the event) a number of people were still referring to it a year on. Wide reporting and enduring presence in popular consciousness are criteria for notability. Your (or my) subjective opinions of how deserved this attention might be don't come into it. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The "widely reported in the press" is quite a false statement. Looking at the sources, I see many which are blogs or blog-like equivalents (e.g. Examiner pages), not reliable sources. A quick count shows around only half to be actual reliable sources. It's a pretty weak article that relies on so many unreliable sources. 67.233.245.55 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree this is exactly the kind of horseshit that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I actually came here via SlutWalk, believe it or not, I wonder how many other thousands of people have too! How do I nominate this article for deletion, or at the very least most pointless article on Wiki. Is there a Razzie style award ceremony for this. Oxr033 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

pseudoscience

Seems like this "experiment" didn't in any way prove what she thinks it did. Did she have a day in which women were encouraged to dress modestly? How many women dressed immodestly who would normally be modest? She claims to have received a worldwide audience but fails to mention exactly how many and in what countries they were. It seems like an awfully big article for something that in the end was just a publicity stunt for her blog and a violation of Wikipedia:SOAP 75.190.175.108 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where this was meant to be science. And how was this a "publicity stunt for her blog"? The page was started by Richard Keatinge, not by McCreight herself. Do you have evidence that the two are the same?--Auric (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, waste of web space.Oxr033 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I have nominated this article for deletion because I think it has extremely little worth. All the sources are either from feminist blog-type sites, or are in the 'and finally ...' section of one or two respectable news publications. The topic is very frivolous and not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, as many have already stated in this talk page. Oxr033 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of atheism plus in this article?

Jen McCreight proposed atheism plus, why no mention? Misogyny from the wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.194.110 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. It's because this is an article about Boobquake, not about McCreight. At some point, I think that Atheism plus will become notable enough to change from a red link to blue, as a page on its own. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Structure of article concerning McCreight

The structure of this article regarding McCreight is problematic. The references associating her to Boobquake are mainly (all?) Facebook, not a WP:RS. Additionally, the Inspiration section is written as if the article is a biographical article with her as the subject of the article itself, complete with her name being bolded (which I removed) and a birthdate provided (also now removed), and non-applicable biographical info. This section needs to be written more like the material in the lead concerning her, but there need to be WP:RS citations added.

Update: I took a stab at fixing the major issues. The Facebook citations remain but are problematic. RobP (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Jen/Jey McCreight

I undid the change of the name from Jen/Jennifer to "Jey" by @ConicProjection:, as it had no reference. All the websites and references have the name as "Jennifer or "Jen", including her blog, updated as recently as March. [3]. Note: I have no objection to the name change providing a reference is provided. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I just found twitter account Jey McCreight with this post [4], so looks like confirmation of "Jey". Twitter source good enough, or is there an additional one? -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Infrogmation, They explicitly asked for help in updating wikipedia references in this tweet (https://twitter.com/jeymccreight/status/1334585209849724928, sorry I'm brand new to Wiki editing and still trying to figure out how to link/format things properly!), I'm not sure if there are other references apart from Twitter. Stephanie.JH.Deppe (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I found the twitter as I mention, and have reverted article accordingly. Just exchanged messages there with McCreight there [5]. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought, if a person was referred to by one name during a significant event, Wikipedia would use that name, even if it's no longer their current name. No? 80.235.236.18 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)