Talk:Time's Up (organization)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sawol (talk | contribs) at 07:34, 10 August 2021 ({{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sreed103 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmansell3 (article contribs).


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request about History and Founding signatories content

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

  • For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
  • If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
  • If the page is protected, use one of the following:
    • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
    • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
    • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
    • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
    • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. Hello, I have another request for this page. As I've disclosed above, I'm an employee of the Foundation and would like to help while following Wikipedia's rules about conflict of interest. I've been looking at the content of the page and there's a lot that is missing or not well explained in the History, so I have been working on drafted text for Wikipedia editors to review.

On a page in my user space, I've put the new draft for editors to look at. My request here has two parts, is it reasonable to:

  • Remove the Founding signatories section and instead include relevant sourced details in History (per my draft)
  • Use my draft to replace and expand on the History section

The draft is here: User:Hope_with_Time's_Up/TU_History_Draft

I've kept most of the History that is in the article (though I did offer a rewrite of some details) with the exception of the following that I cut:

  • The bullet point list of initiatives, which I turned into prose and better rewrote to be further from the source
  • The parts that were too detailed about the 2018 Grammys

Thanks again for any help! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:9H48F or User:Suriname0 be able to look at my draft and give feedback? You both have helped me here before and I am curious if you have any thoughts about this, or could give me some pointers on how else to find feedback. Thanks again! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 and Innisfree987: Thank you both for your feedback on the draft. To help if other editors want to review and for transparency, I'm copying the feedback so far and linking to the other Talk page discussions below.
From my user talk page:
Extended content

Hi. I've been pinged into a discussion you raised on another user's talk page. I'm looking through the article now (as I would for a typical good article nomination, though I'm not expecting that level of detail on a first draft) and copyediting it for clarity. I've also got a few questions:

  • Who are the "Alianza Nacional de Campesinas"?
  • What makes teenvogue.com a good source to use in a Wikipedia article?
  • As a general rule of thumb, I like to see claims like "On February 18, 2019, she stepped down after her son was accused of sexual misconduct." to have two citations. It's kind of inline with best practice for journalism - don't confirm a story unless you get it from two sources.
  • I haven't spot checked much of the news sources used in the article, simply because a lot of them are slow to load. I do mean to come back and do this later.

I hope that all makes sense, and if you've got any further questions, let me know.

My final question is, what do you intend to do with the draft - merge it into the "History" section of the existing article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note to what Ritchie is saying above, you may want to look at WP:RSP to get a feel for what is and is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. The list is not exhaustive and there may be others that we generally accept but this is a great place to start. --ARoseWolf 14:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ARoseWolf, I have a tool to spot-check the reliability of sources, and nothing came up as a red flag. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, look at you and your tools. :) My tool belt is empty. :( --ARoseWolf 14:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 and ARoseWolf: Thank you both for your notes here. I have made some changes to the draft and have notes back to Ritchie333's questions:

  • Alianza Nacional de Campesinas is also known as the National Women's Farmworker's Alliance; I've added a brief description to the draft. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a Wikipedia page yet
  • Teen Vogue has been well-regarded for its social and political journalism in recent years. This is mentioned in the publication's Wikipedia article. The piece I've cited is a retrospective piece on Time's Up's progress, written by a journalist (she has also written for The Seattle Times and VICE, among others) and it confirmed a few details. I did a quick search and saw that Teen Vogue was used as a source in a few other Wikipedia articles, though perhaps there are specific reasons for those instances. If this source isn't appropriate, I can look into replacing it.
  • I added another source to confirm Lisa Borders stepping down. This content was taken directly from the current article, aside from a small copy edit I made.
  • My suggestion for adding it to the article is to replace the current History and Founding signatories section, if editors agree.

Hopefully these answers help! I really appreciate the feedback so far. Thanks, Hope with Time's Up (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From WikiProject Women in Red:
Extended content

Hope with Time's Up, thanks for your attentiveness to WP policies. I read through the draft which to me seems adequately sourced and neutrally presented, altho I don’t have time just now to read through the sources to make sure they’re being accurately and neutrally conveyed. That’s mainly to say: this is basically a favorable account and if sources include any significant criticism, that needs to be included too. To be clear it doesn’t read as promotional and so far as I’m familiar with the movement, nothing major comes to mind as missing from this particular section but if another editor has time to check the sources, that would probably be preferable before pasting in such a big rewrite. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like both editors are generally feeling good about my draft, though Ritchie333 had some questions, which I've answered above and updated the draft. Did you still want to review the sources some more, Ritchie333? I'm hoping once the sources have been reviewed, the draft will be ready to be added to the page. Thanks for all the help so far! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the request

Hi, I'm currently attempting to work through the heavy backlog over at CAT:EDITREQ. This request has now been looked at by several editors and been positively reviewed. I've taken a look and it looks fine to me. Accordingly, I've decided to implement and to close the request. Pinging Ritchie333, ARoseWolf, Innisfree987. Please let me know if there are any issues. Cheers. JBchrch talk 09:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch, I think I'll assume good faith that the remaining sources are okay, and we should close this and move Hope with Time's Up's work into the main article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, I see no issue moving forward with including the information. It looks properly sourced and they came to independent editors to get it included to fulfill any COI concerns. It appears appropriate so I concur with the closure. --ARoseWolf 12:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch, Ritchie333, ARoseWolf, and Innisfree987: Thank you all for the feedback and help. Hope with Time's Up (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request about Purpose and Organization content

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

  • For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
  • If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
  • If the page is protected, use one of the following:
    • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
    • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
    • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
    • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
    • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. Hello, I am here with another request, which I'm making as an employee of the TIME'S UP Foundation to make sure I'm following the rules on Wikipedia for conflict of interest. Other pages about movements and non-profits tend to have details about its aims, and information about the structure and leadership of the organization. It feels like this would be especially helpful for TIME'S UP, as the page discusses both the movement and the organization, which can get confusing at times.

My request is: would it be reasonable to add two new sections? One to describe the Purpose, and one to outline the Organization.

I have two drafts, which I've added in my user space here: User:Hope_with_Time's_Up/TU_Organization_Purpose_Drafts

All the material in these is new and I've aimed to mainly rely on journalism, though in a couple spots I did use TIME'S UP website links as citations:

  • For establishing Tina Tchen's official title and that she oversees both TIME'S UP Now and TIME'S UP Foundation
  • To include Nina Shaw and note that the organization has a volunteer board of directors

Otherwise, all the citations are news items or academic journal articles.

Thanks again for any help! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Request edit}} template for this proposed change. Melmann 16:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Melmann: Thank you for your reply. I was using the request template to make sure I was following the rules. Is it ok for me to re-add it once others have weighed in? And should I get input from editors who are subject matter experts on any other requests before I add the template?
@Ritchie333, ARoseWolf, and Innisfree987: Following Melmann's note above that editors familiar with the subject matter should take a look at this and come to consensus, your feedback would be very welcome, if it's possible to take some of your time. Do you all have any thoughts on the two proposed drafts? Thanks again for your help! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hope with Time's Up: Edit Request process is generally used to a) implement small uncontroversial changes that most editors are unlikely to object to or b) implement other changes following a consensus being achieved. Your edit is substantial in size, and may be objected to by existing editors of this page, which is why I asked you to seek consensus. Once you achieve consensus, ideally, the non-COI editors who discussed your changes will implemented the agreed upon version, but if they don't please feel free to reopen the edit request (by removing the |D|C from the {{Request edit|D|C}} template at the top of this section).
Please also note that there is no minimum participation level to achieve consensus, so if nobody responds to your messages, we can take your version to be the consensus version and implement it as is. That being said, generally, most discussion are not closed for at least 7 days (unless the consensus is obvious), so if you get no response, please refrain from re-opening the edit request for at least 7 days (counting from when I closed your request initially). Melmann 15:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-opened the edit request template, based on Melmann's note above since no-one has commented yet. Thanks again for any help! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the additions I felt were reasonable. Hope with Time's Up, don't worry about what's on articles about other organizations. They may be wrong, and in fact if you see cruft there, call it out. Tell us what should be on this page and why it's helpful to readers. I've shortened the suggested edits into what feels reasonable and inserted them. —valereee (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New request August 2021

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

  • For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
  • If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
  • If the page is protected, use one of the following:
    • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
    • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
    • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
    • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
    • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

Thank you so much, @Valereee: This is good feedback and I really appreciate you adding in some of the draft to the article. You mentioned focusing on what is best for this article and most helpful to readers, so on that note there are three specific things from my draft that I'd like to ask if you could look at again:
First, since the article is titled "Time's Up (movement)" but addresses both the movement and the organization, part of my goal with these two drafts was to help make the relationship and difference between the movement and non-profit clearer for readers. The second half of the Purpose draft was written to explain the aims of the movement as a whole. Would you be willing to add those details in?
The second detail that I would like to advocate for including is the information about the entities that make up TIME'S UP, since there is a lot of confusion about this and I think this is something readers would find both interesting and very helpful. Specifically, the first three sentences of the Organization draft are straightforward explanations of the entities and I think it is encyclopedic and useful. If you'd prefer a shorter version, would this work: The organization is separated into two main entities: Time's Up Foundation a 501(c)3, a charitable organization that is able to receive tax-deductible donations.[1] and Time's Up Now, which is a 501(c)4 non-profit that can be involved in political activity[2] and is the advocacy arm of the organization.[3]
Finally, I'm wondering if it's helpful to include a couple details about the different industry groups so it's clear how they each support their different areas?
Thank you again! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hope with Time's Up, see below for org vs. movement, and I think it might make sense to only focus on the organization here. That's clearly what this article is primarily about. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Valereee: Thanks for renaming the page to Time's Up (organization), that makes a lot of sense and does resolve some of my follow-up request above. I've struck through the part that no longer needs a reply, so that this request is just about the entity details and industry groups. Do you have any thoughts on those? Thank you, Hope with Time's Up (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hope, sorry, I really don't understand what's important and why about the various subentities. Unless a casual reader needs to know about these for some reason, they may simply be noise. And if an interested reader can just click to the organization's website and find the same info, then it's probably not needed here. —valereee (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Maddaus2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Holloway2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Wilson, Wendy (December 3, 2019). "TIME'S UP Now CEO offers unwavering support for women challenging toxic workplace cultures". theGrio. Retrieved March 11, 2021.

Move to Time's Up (organization)

Per the above thread, I'm proposing moving this article, then focusing on the organization in the article. The movement may actually be part of Me Too movement? —valereee (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even from its creation it was misnamed. The article was always about the organization. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

criticism section

Much of the second paragraph seems to be a criticism of Hollywood, not of the Time's Up organization? —valereee (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the criticism of the Hollywood/the movement as opposed to of the the organization. —valereee (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time%27s_Up_(organization)&oldid=1038055954"