Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Clearly there is no deletion that will happen here (consensus is firmly against that). Possibility of a merge warrants discussion, but that can be done on the article's talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy

[edit]
Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about an event (the "controversy"). Here are the notability guidelines for events: [1], going straight to the "inclusion criteria". The article does not satisfy any of these criteria. Specifically: Lasting effect- no discernible lasting effects. Geographical scope - I'm sure they care about this in Africa. Or Asia. Or even North America. Depth of coverage - at best ankle deep. An old outdated story in a local newspaper. One attention seeker engaging in self promotion (non-reliable primary source), couple passing mentions. That's about it. Duration of coverage - shorter than the life expectancy of a Mayfly. It's hard to believe that anyone cares about this anymore. Looking on GoogleNews "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!" gets you exactly... zero hits. As in "nada". Diversity of sources - like I said. A couple of outdated newspaper stories which mention the event in passing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 8. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 06:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this controversy, and especially the shirt, is discussed in a number of RS long after the event - a search of google books finds this referenced in several books that analyze esp American or western culture and it's view of boys and men. The fact that there are no google news results is irrelevant - google recently changed their archive policy and you can now only search a short time backwards. I also found several hits from google scholar. I have to wonder about how much effort the nom put into this - it clearly passes GNG. I'm on mobile so can't easily post links but I uge everyone voting here to not take mareks assertions above as gospel truth, and search google books yourself you will find this mentioned in several books.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs to support your assertions. " a search of google books finds this referenced in several books" - mmmmm.... no. A gbooks search just brings up a) Wikipedia reprints b) other books by the same company c) old articles on the subject compiled into book volumes and d) completely unrelated hits. And even all that is not much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's gbooks search, once you subtract off the word "Wikipedia": [2] (replacing the exclamation point by a comma makes no difference).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, I think you've been around the block so not really in the mood to argue how to use google search. Suffice to say that if you think an adequate search is for the exact string "Boy are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy" you're missing the point. Try breaking up the phrases and you'll get more hits, including articles in Time and at least 3 books. We may need to get books from library as google search only has snippets of some. Please stop promoting these bogus searches, the controversy and Tshirt is not always covered using this exact string, you need to have more flexible queries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. It's exactly because I've been around the block that I know to *use* the exact string rather than broken up phrases which pick up lots of irrelevant hits. Look at the top of this page. Where it says "(Find sources: "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)". Click on the "books" link. It takes you to a gbooks search which looks for the exact string. That's what I used, I just added "-Wikipedia". The stuff about "getting books from a library" (be my guest, but do so, not just assert that if you did so, it'd be different) is just making excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, you want this article deleted so obviously aren't looking carefully for sources, which I easily found with more flexible searches. The full string you're looking for is the title of the article, which doesn't match how RS speak about this event (eg they don't always call it a controversy, they so times leave out 'throw rocks at them', they sometimes discuss other tshirts by the same company but in the same vein, etc. you need to do more than an exact string match.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see these sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional sources a number of RS that cover this topic in detail are listed on the right hand side here including radio and TV coverage as well as articles in newspapers and magazines in Canada and the US. The coverage shown here goes through 2005 (a year after the campaign started) and I've found book hits from 2008 and 2012. As mentioned I'm on mobile so can't pull all the sources right now but I just don't want people voting based on the biased and misleading intro by Marek which under-estimates the coverage.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on. That's Glenn Sacks' website, the guy who whipped up the whole "controversy" thing in the first place to promote himself. It's a primary and unreliable source. And the links on the site are to obscure small local newspaper stories from... ten years ago. Which just proves that there is no "Lasting effect" here what so ever, or depth of coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
marek I find it very hard to assume good faith when you consistently mislead people with your comments. Would you consider Time magazine, people magazine, the San Francisco chronicle, the Washington post, and the AP to be small local newspapers? All of them covered this particular campaign and controversy in articles devoted to the subject. I don't care about Sack's website, he just happens to have a good list of articles already linked. Please stop with the misleading comments about which sources have covered this. As for lasting, the fact that this controversy is mentioned in books published many years later is sufficient evidence of lasting impact. When I get to computer later this week I will post more sources but please everyone else do your own research don't trust what Marek says as his goal is deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but when I look at the "right hand side" of that website I see: Boulder Daily Camera", the (no longer existent) Billboard Radio Monitor, the Denver Westward, City Link Magazine, all from 2005. The Time magazine (not an article, a blurb) and the rest are older from 2004. Again, this just shows that ten years ago there were some stories about this. But not since then. See Inclusion criteria "Lasting effect". There's no significant coverage here. Hell, there wasn't even significant coverage back when this happened. What books are you talking about? You keep making assertions but provide no evidence or misleading evidence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at the WikiProject Men's Issues talk page[3] & WikiProject Gender Studies talk page[4]. Cailil talk 11:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Google News has recently changed their algorithm, making very few hits come up for pretty much any subject, so HighBeam is a superior method of searching for references. As I've shown, it bears out that this subject definitely passes GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this is simply false. There are NOT "dozens of RS hits at HighBeam". Certainly not ones with indepth coverage, most of them either making a passing mention or articles about t-shirts in general or about the book NOT the event. And most of these are small newspapers or magazines of local interest. And some of these hits are really listing the same source over and over again. And virtually ALL of them are from 2004 and 2005 (one from 2007?). So again, there's no evidence of "Lasting Coverage". Or In Depth Coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of hits, and some of extraordinary depth that I have provided. That said, please read Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there really are not. Somewhere in the neighborhood of half a dozen, at best, all from about ten years ago. And no evidence of "extraordinary depth" has been provided at all! Where? What are you talking about? Two articles/blurbs from 2004/5? NOTTEMPORARY is not relevant here (esp. since this wasn't notable to begin with), Inclusion Criteria are. And these are not satisfied. Not even close.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and yes, it does differ from mine. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These highbeam articles are mainly news paper artciles and are mainly the same material reprinted. Again VM's point re: depth & duration of coverage still stands. The other articles are not about the topic but tangential to it. To assert notability sources do have to be about the topic--Cailil talk 14:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't possibly have read through the dozens and dozens of articles since I posted my comment thoroughly enough to know that. I did read through most of them, and you're incorrect about the coverage when you mine through the entire heap. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three examples of in depth coverage: 2004, 2005, and 2007. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These 3 links are newspaper articles Jeremy112233. You can see where the articles are published on highbeam with the listing on left BTW. And one of the criteria here is diversity of sources. The highbeam lists illustrate the homogeneity of sources here not their diversity--Cailil talk 17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are newspaper articles :) Those sources are all that is required to pass GNG. But... Google Books shows the subject coming up half a dozen or so times as well. It is also cited in these two academic sources: shown here on Google Scholar. It is also discussed here in an art magazine. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, that's not "all that is required to pass GNG". Not even close. Please read my rationale for listing this article for deletion. For it to pass GNG you need show Lasting effect, Geographical scope, Depth of coverage, Duration of coverage, or at least some of these. But none of them are satisfied. Three sources from ten years ago don't cut it. And the 2007 article is NOT about the event, it's not even about the book, just mentions it in passing. So, ... two sources from ten years ago don't cut it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have your opinion, and I have mine. That is what AFD is all about. I would say that hounding every person who posts here and commenting on every post doesn't show you are more correct than others, it simply shows that you are willing to repeat yourself more than others are :) My one real concern with your argumentation is that you appear to be cherry-picking the words of others and showing them out of context. Like, say, taking my examples of three articles out of their context as being available alongside the sources on the current page or in the context of the various other sources available. That can be construed as misleading. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I could see a removal of the word "controversy" from the title and transitioning the article into an article on the book itself. The book's coverage very clearly meets GNG, and if there are concerns about an article focused on the controversy only, that could be a good fix. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huge story with international scope and wasn't simply limited to the US. Other countries, in particular Canada had a fair bit of coverage and retailers there actually took an even harder line against the distributor than those anywhere else. As others have rightly pointed out, Google news has changed and never seems to bring up any older results anymore, so that aspect of the argument can be ignored too. I see the products are still on sale too, and the book has even been translated into Russian.[5]--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The excuse that "Google news has changed and never seems to bring up any older results" (did it?) doesn't hold water. First, it's only an excuse, it still fails to provide evidence of notability. Second, "older results" is not the main problem. The lack of newer results which would satisfy the "Lasting coverage" aspect is the main problem. And for that you can't use supposed changes in Google news as an excuse. Like I said, searching Google news for the topic gets you zero hits "No results found for "Boys are Stupid Throw Rocks At Them".". "So no, that aspect cannot be ignored. The fact that product is on sale or translated into Russian is irrelevant. It says nothing about the notability of the event. I have no idea where you got that this was "Huge story with international scope".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one arguing that the lack of results in Google news was grounds for deletion, yet it is undeniable that the service is relatively useless compared to the way it used to operate. The fact that a service no longer functions properly is not grounds for deletion of articles. I barely get any results on Google news for the majority of the topics I search for these days, your "argument" could be used to delete half of the entire Wikipedia project. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but perhaps you can tell us how to get news results via Google news which are more than a month old, i certainly can't here in the UK, no matter what date range I select. It used to work perfectly but seems to have been broken since about February--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not doing anything wrong; they removed the "archive" search function and as such Google News is no longer a viable search option for anything but very recent news. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also note the most recent coverage is in Irish publications, again showing very clear international scope, not to mention a timespan of 8 years between the earliest and latest coverage.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What recent coverage in Irish publications? Link please. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified him myself. really not impressed by the conduct of some of those trying to have deleted. No one bothers to notify the creator, yet the discussion gets listed a completely irrelevant projects such as Wikiproject feminism (no listing at Wikiproject books either despite it being part of that project)--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the creator wasn't notified is because according to article history, the User who created it, AFAICT, stopped editing in 2007. User:Bastel who expanded the article, also hasn't exactly been active in the past four years. So no, it's not a "major oversight". Please stop trying to create... controversy, where there is none.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you deliberately chose not to notify any of the creators of this article about this discussion? The fact that someone isn't all that active surely makes notification all the more urgent so they have a chance to see the message before the decision is made. If anyone here is "creating controversy" here then it's those failing to give appropriate notifications to people who are likely to want to keep the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's Volunteer Marek is "creating controversy", they gave their reasons for it and you were able to notify the user within minutes. All you are doing is derailing the discussion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What utter nonsense. It was the duty of those nominating this for deletion to notify the creator. Not only did they fail to do so, the error appears to be deliberate and at the very least no apology has been made. That's pretty disgraceful conduct by any standards. Others involved in trying to have this article removed, particularly any experienced editors, could also have at least checked to make sure everything was above board but they didn't bother either. You rightly point out how easy it is to notify the user, but it really shouldn't be down to me to do it. Finally, i realise you're fairly new here, but please do not undo any bolding in my comments, content such as the above is extremely important in assessing what's going on here and as such the bolding is entirely appropriate, particularly given the admission that followed it!--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop lying. I never "admitted this was entirely deliberate!". I merely pointed out that the creator of the article has not been active on Wikipedia for many years. You're trying to play some idiotic "gotcha" game. Which given how this discussion has unfolded is just par for the course. And yes, bolding your own comments is obnoxious and very much like typing in all caps. Everyone thinks their own comment is "extremely important", just like a person shouting in a room believes that what they have to say is "extremely important". But it's really not. You might also want to hold off on lecturing new, but good faithed users, especially while your own conduct is quite disruptive. You come off as a bully.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I 'll tweak the comment as it isn't an outright admission. My apologies for the mistake. Perhaps while we're in the business of correcting things you can strike every single one of your totally false claims that lack of results in Google news meaning anything. Alternatively, you'll need to enlighten us all how to get results in Google news from more than month into the past . This is something I've previously requested with no reply, appears to still be confusing those new to this discussion and as such is the most derailing thing here. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just difficult to read the discussion or what the references say with so much bold text in such a small area. I mentioned that any editors could revert it in the edit summary, the main aim of the action was to make it easier for other editors to comprehend the conversation and possibly put the debate back on track. I was considering sectioning the whole argument off because quite frankly the amount of personal insults from "senior editors" is embarrassing and completely derailed the discussion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has been now been listed in the relevant projects Men's Issues, Gender Studies, Feminism, and now Books as you requested --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at the WikiProject Books talk page[6] & WikiProject Feminism talk page[7]. Drowninginlimbo talk 19:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the article satisfies GNG (having reliable sources is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for notability), rather than just blithely asserting that it does? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merging this with Sachs's article wouldn't be the end of the world, but this controversy does seem to have picked up a fair amount of coverage from local and national sources. I think this particularly controversy was part of an emerging concern over men's (and boy's) rights. Orser67 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Volunteer Marek makes a good argument for deletion, and while the event has a small amount of coverage, it's already in Sacks' own article, so this is basically a pointless content fork (and one that makes Sacks look like a chump, frankly) and there's nothing to merge. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't already in Sacks' article, other than a single sentence in the Campaigns section. It has far more than a small amount of coverage, just need to search for sources properly as Jeremy112233 explained. Dream Focus 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A highbeam search for "Boys are stupid" "throw rocks at them" shows 37 results. [8] Read through the article summaries, and they are talking about this in different newspapers from January 2004 to as recently as 2012. Dream Focus 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as recently as 2012" is a misleading way of saying there is one (1, uno, single, next integer after zero) article [9] from 2012 which barely mentions the t-shirt a magnet (NOT the controversy) in passing. This is not in depth coverage, actually, it's not even really coverage. The rest of the articles, are mostly from 2004/5, i.e. ten years ago (there might be one from 2007). And it's not 37 results since some of it just repeats the same hit multiple times. In fact all but a few of these outdated hits are NOT about the controversy and only mention the t-shirt (or magnet) in passing. That is nowhere near enough to satisfy inclusion guidelines linked to above. Please actually pay attention to the inclusion guidelines folks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You claimed that there were sources "as recently as 2012". I pointed out that this was a misleading way of relating the fact that there happened to be a single source from 2012 which barely mentions the topic... actually it doesn't even mention the topic, it just mentions a refrigerator magnet. And I pointed out that most of the ten year old sources only mention the t-shirt (not the controversy) in passing. And you... respond with a non-sequitur about how this wasn't just one person "led a campaign against it". Huh? Are we having a serious discussion here, or is this a "when I'm shown to be bullshitting about one thing, I'll just start bullshitting about another" kind of deal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Dream Focus was not being misleading. Stating "sources as recently as" can include up to the last one, and, the wider the range, the longer the coverage. And using the word "bullshit" is a second instance of blantant incivility you have shown to other editors in this comment string. Swearing at people who don't agree with you is antithetical to Wikipedia's spirit and a clear policy violation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Technically. Literally. If no one pays attention. If you want to wikilawyer it. If you lack complete awareness and ability to think and evaluate. If you're obsessive about semantics. If you're arguing in bad faith. If you're trying to score cheap, but irrelevant points in a discussion rather than engaging the issue at hand. If you're twelve years old. Then "sources as recently as 2012", where out of ten or so sources, 9 are ten years old, and one, barely mentioning the topic, happens to be from 2012, is "true". Whoohoo! You win. But ... it is very much misleading. Because, you know. 9 out of 10.
  • And gimme a break with this "incivility" crap. What's incivil is accusing the other person of lying, in ALL CAPS, and bolded text, while weaseling the hell out of an issue yourself. The last recourse of someone with no good arguments: As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.” - Paul Krugman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you miss the point that on Wikipedia, you may well be speaking to a "12 year old", as you put it, when using such language and heated communication techniques. Because young people can indeed become involved here, and are encouraged to. Civility isn't meant to be a complex issue. It is meant to require editors to be as respectful as possible. And, if you prefer a legal analogy, using uncivil behavior in court automatically brings the law to the other side of the table you're pounding :) Luckily, we have no contempt of Wikipedia norms around these parts. As far as asking for civility goes, would it help if I said please :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you how my thought process ran : 1) Is the event sourced? Yes. 2) Can the event be represented in another article? Yes, Sacks' one. 3) Is Sacks' article big enough to require a content fork? No. That rules out "Keep", leaving a choice of "delete", "merge" or "redirect". 4) Is there large amounts of important content that should be preserved as a merge? No. Strike "Merge". 5) Is somebody likely to type "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy" into the search box? No. Strike "Redirect". The only option then left is "delete". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Recruiting kids into gender wars, [10], Clay Evans, 7/30/2005, Daily Camera 870 words
  2. Guy Trouble, 06/06/2005, People Magazine, [11], 270 words
  3. Don't throw rocks at him, he's not stupid., Chuck Taylor, Billboard Radio Monitor, June 3, 2005, [12]
  4. This Boy's Not Stupid,Nancy Imperiale, June 5, 2004, Orlando Sentinel, [13] ~93 words
  5. The mean T-shirt: From the Stupid Factory: Todd Goldman says his popular boy-bashing T-shirts are simply funny.,Georgie Binks, May 29, 2004, The National Post, weblink: www. canadiancrc . com/Newspaper_Articles/Nat_Post_The_Mean_TShirt_29MAY04.aspx, 1088 words
  6. Bashing boys is, like, not OK,Danna Harman, The Christian Science Monitor,March 31, 2004, [14] 1243 words
  7. Teed Off Over T Shirts, Isabel C. Gonzalez, Feb. 22, 2004, Time Magazine, [15]
  8. Anti-Boy T-Shirts Get Boost from Boycott, Jean Scheidnes, February 29, 2004, Reuters, [16] 756 words
  9. STORES PULL SHIRTS THAT SLAM BOYS, Suzanne Kapner, February 20, 2004, NY Post, [17] 384 words
  10. Retailers pull 'Boys Are Stupid' products: Protests say merchandise may promote anti-male bias, AP, 1/29/2004, [18] 648 words
  11. T-SHIRT TIFF VALLEY MAN GETS STORES TO PULL 'BOYS ARE STUPID' LOGO ITEMS, Brent Hopkins, January 30, 2004, Daily News (Los Angeles, CA), [19]
  12. Goldman-Sacks controversy rocks David & Goliath Inc., Erika Engle, Friday, January 30, 2004, Honolulu Star Bulletin, [20]
  13. Never underestimate customer's 'bad' taste, Young Chang, February 03, 2004, Seattle Times, [21]
  14. Boys can't take a joke, throw rocks at them, Dennis Roddy, January 31, 2004, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, [22]
  15. Clothing Designer Misses Point of 'Girl Power', Dana Williams, Tolerance.org (Project of Southern Poverty Law Center), February 3, 2004, [23]
  16. Christmas in a war zone,Wendy McElroy, December 23, 2003, FoxNews.com, [24]
  17. Does This T-Shirt Send The Right Message?, Dec 8, 2003, KOMO News, [25]
  18. Are We Living in a Girls' World?, The Irish Times; August 7, 2012
  19. Another example of bad taste: boy-bashing, Oakland Tribune, January 20, 2004, [26]
  20. Girl Power as Boy Bashing: Evaluating the Latest Twist In the War of the Sexes, Jeffrey Zaslow, April 21, 2005, Wall Street Journal [27] 917 words
  21. The Chilly World of the Campus Male, Warren Farrell, October 24, 2011, Minding the Campus, [28] (Farrell even mentions the fact that this controvery received enough notoriety to merit a wikipedia article
  22. Telling it to the world on a T-Shirt, Suzanne S. Brown, Denver Post, April 12, 2004, [29]
  • Mentions/coverage in books (note: most of these books are published in 2006 and later)
  1. Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care, By Kathleen Parker, pp.18-19, 2008, [30]
  2. Your Boy: Raising a Godly Son in an Ungodly World, By Vicki Courtney, pp.161-162, 2006, [31]
  3. Karla Marx, Marshall Rockford Goodman, pp.13, published 2008
  4. Re-thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims, By Anthony Synnott, p.136, 2009, [32]
  5. Does feminism discriminate against men?, Warren Farrell, James P. Sterba, pp:93,94, 2008, [33]
  6. The Blue Book on Information Age Inquiry, Instruction and Literacy, Daniel Callison, Leslie Preddy, p. 381, published 2006, [34]
  7. 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37), Bernard Goldberg, pp60-62, 2005
  8. Woman Power: Transform Your Man, Your Marriage, Your Life, Laura Schlessinger, pp.87-89, 2004
  • Coverage in scholarly/academic articles
  1. An Introduction to Gender Equality Issues in the Marketing and Design of Goods for Children,M Valiulis, A O'Driscoll, J Redmond, pp23-24, 2007, The Equality Authority, Ireland [35]
    "A trend has emerged in the field of marketing towards children whereby controversial images have been attached to children’s products. The two primary examples here would be the use of “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” imagery from David & Goliath, Inc. and the use of the Playboy ® symbol on children’s merchandise... The imagery used for this merchandise, in which cartoon girls can be seen throwing rocks at fleeing cartoon boys draws upon the idea of a battle between the sexes, and both feeds into and sustains a sense of conflict between boys and girls. It also demeans and insults boys. The imagery can be seen to differentiate children by gender and to promote ideas of dominance and violence with regard to the relationship between the genders. This imagery is exclusionary in a negative sense. The use of incitement to gender violence as a marketing ploy is antithetical to the promotion of equality and respect among children. The images used here, symbolising as they do a sense of gender war, both perpetuate and create the conflict that they represent. In doing so, they perpetuate division and hierarchy between children based upon their gender." (my bolding)
  2. It's Just a Joke: Violence Against Males in Humorous Advertising, Charles S. Gulas, Kim K. McKeage, and Marc G. Weinberger. Journal of Advertising 39.4 (2010): 109-120. (Need someone with journal access to find details of coverage in this article)

The fact that an Irish commission on equality cited the "Boys are stupid" tshirts as a "primary" example of problematic gendered imagery on tshirts, and this is a report from 2007, to me is strong evidence of the lasting and sustained nature of this controversy and the impact it has had. Additionally, the fact that it is mentioned in at least 8 books, 6 of which were published 2 years after the events in question, again demonstrates that this event has long-term significance. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CAN YOU PLEASE STOP BOLDING HALF YOUR COMMENTS. ITS REALLY ANNOYING AND REALLY SIMILAR TO WHEN PEOPLE TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND INCLUDE LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THAT SOMEHOW MAKES THEIR POINT MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT REALLY IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bolding my comments, I'm bolding the titles of the articles. Relax.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Obiwankenobi: - it's convention to italicize the titles of articles, not bold them. Your unnecessary bolding is disrupting the flow of discussion significantly. Please reformat it to not be disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this would disrupt anything. Whining about it needlessly does seem disruptive and pointless. Dream Focus 22:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SHOUT#shouting. Bolding a massive wall of titles disrupts the flow of the page and per TPG is not a good practice. Kevin Gorman (talk)
That reads "Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases". I think what he did made things more readable than italics would have. Dream Focus 22:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the title formatting was a mistake and not intentional. WP:AGF is probably the policy we should be reaching for in this case :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving undue emphasis to your own comments, throwing them in the reader's face, and over taking the discussion. It's obnoxious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first these are NOT "additional sources". These are the same sources, mostly from ten years ago, which have already been discussed. In the "articles" section ALL but ONE of the articles are from before 2005. The one which is from 2011 only mentions the t-shirt in passing and, more importantly, when it does so, it does it because of the article Wikipedia. That's the classic "create nonsense on Wikipedia, have it picked up by outside sources, use the outside sources to source the nonsense on Wikipedia" phenomenon. It's circular. No evidence of duration of coverage.
Second, all but a few of these are NOT about the controversy, they mention the t-shirt in passing or are minor local newspaper. Again, there's no evidence of depth of coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, I suggest you apologize. A lack of civility is completely uncalled for. If you feel annoyed, perhaps you should find a different part of the site to edit in the future. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. A lack of civility is when "Obi-Wan Kenobi" accuses me of using false edit summaries - without back up - or of making "false comments". On the other hand, there's nothing "incivil" in what I said above. I'm addressing policy and the issue, not the editor. Please point out where this "incivility" exists in the comment above. Or just look up "incivility" in a dictionary (that last comment is a bit incivil itself but deserved). And let me quote Paul Krugman here: As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.”.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Marek. I count at least 5 articles from after 2004 (and note: the campaign started in 2003, not 2004). More importantly, there are 6 books I count from 2006 and later, and two academic articles, including one which looks into the issue of the tshirts in depth. You claim "minor local newspaper" but you discount the fact that AP and Reuters, major wire services, both covered this issue. The vast bulk of sources above DO cover the topic in some detail - indeed most articles are fully ABOUT the controversy. You seem blinded by your spite for this article and are refusing to read the sources before your eyes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I count at least 5 articles from after 2004 - nice try. How many since 2005? You're not sneaky.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, you said this: " In the "articles" section ALL but ONE of the articles are from before 2005" - to me, that means, all but ONE of the articles are from 2004 or earlier. I countered this pointing out there are 5 published AFTER 2004. I'm not being sneaky, and you are being blatantly misleading, especially by claiming this topic is not covered in depth, a most ridiculous claim.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Nominator gutted the article before nominating for deletion
I just found the following edits by Volunteer Marek, done a month before nominating for deletion: [36],[37]],[38]],[39]]
Several of these deletions contain reliable sources (but they were removed with edit summary claiming non-RS), and others contain claims which are easily verifiable from sources already in the article, but VM declined to do the work, preferring to gut instead. Given the long list of sources I and others have found and documented, I can only assume that VM has one goal in mind which is deletion of this article irregardless of the facts or the sources, and he has made false edit summaries and blatantly false claims in all of his posts above, so all those saying that VM made a good argument are mistaken to take his claims at face value.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I removed was some blatant misrepresentation of sources and false citations.
In this edit I removed text which claimed that the Southern Poverty Law Center] got involved in the controversy - the source doesn't even mention SPLC! I also removed a bunch of uncited claims. The removal was fully justified as this was an obvious case of someone "lying with citations"
Marek, you're just being sloppy. The source cited there was tolerance.org, which is a project OF THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. The author is a STAFF WRITER of said project. And in any case, you're edits are way too dragon-like - you didn't bother to check whether things were cited or covered, you just brute force deleted things without checking. It's sloppy work.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. You need a source which says "SPLC took a position on this", not a source - an editorial - which mentions the controversy. I almost feel like I should take the accusations that my edits were "dragon-like" (??? I think you might be watching too many cartoons) as a complement, though I'm guessing it's not intended that way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't read the source. Did you read what it says at the bottom? ">> UPDATE Feb. 4, 2004 -- Despite widespread protest, the David and Goliath clothing company says it won't stop producing its line of anti-boy items. The company also isn't apologizing for merchandise some consider blatantly racist.>> DO SOMETHING :: E-mail David and Goliath to let them know what you think about the "Boys are stupid" merchandise. Or contact them at: (address); Have you seen the "Boys are stupid" merchandise on the shelves of retailers in your area? Contact managers or owners, or draft letters of complaint and ask them to remove the merchandise from their stores. " this was a staff writer, on a project by the SLPC, asking people to write letters to complain and remove the merchandise. In what world is that not SLPC taking a position? Anyway, I doubt you even knew that tolerance.org was a SLPC project, so you didn't read the source anyway...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. And that's a textbook example of WP:OR based on someone's interpretation of a primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit I removed a bunch of promo cited to a primary source by the guy who whipped up this artificial controversy.
In this edit I removed more bs original research sourced to primary sources and a whole bunch of badly written unsourced text.
In this edit I removed more original research and a nonsense section title (iconic status? gimme a freakin' break) and WP:SYNTH.
There were no "blatantly false claims" in any of my posts, nor were any of my edit summaries false. I would appreciate it if you quit making bullshit accusations.
Look. I can see that for whatever reason a few editors are desperate to keep this article, Wikipedia guidelines and policy be damned. But can you at least, like, not stoop to lying in pursuit of that aim? Thanks buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, your edit summaries WERE false. In several instances you removed material that was easily citeable or already covered in existing citations in the text, but which didn't yet have an inline link. In other instances you removed material that was cited to reliable sources but you called it "unreliable sources". That whole series of edits was in bad faith and when I get time I'm going to undo most of them. Anyway, this isn't the place to continue discussing this, I just think people coming here should know that you've taken bad-faith actions before nominating this for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more time. Stop accusing me of using false edit summaries, unless you're prepared to back that up. I don't know if the material was "easily citeable" - whether that is true or not, it was NOT cited. Claiming that it "didn't yet" have a link is nonsense, as the text had been sitting there for months. In other instances the material I removed was NOT cited to reliable sources but to primary sources or fluffy op-ed pieces (for statements of fact). Yet other stuff I removed misrepresented the sources. The only one acting in bad faith here is you. Or maybe not. Maybe you're just not familiar with actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a court of law, anyone can look at your diffs and decide for themselves. I will sort out these edits later, but not here, we can discuss at the talk page of the article once this closes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though that doesn't mean you get to lie about me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do two, to start with and demonstrate your misleading edit summaries. Here is the first one:
[40], edit summary "this is all sourced to Sacks - not reliable". Blatantly false! The source is the Boulder Daily Camera itself, and the text in question cites the two articles and the positions they took.
[41], edit summary: "remove unsourced and non-RS" - LIES LIES LIES!! All are quotes from reliable sources, and there is no synth, except perhaps the "iconic" moniker. Wall Street Journal is a rather reliable source, and the piece discusses the shirts and the controversy in detail.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly false! The source is the Boulder Daily Camera itself, - No. It appears you don't understand what a "citation" is. The text is *cited* to Sacks and the source - Sacks - gives his opinion of what BDC said. There is a *link* to BDC but all that cites is "In a BDC article". The claim(s), for example that the article was "condemned by its editorial board", and what some person said, is cited to Sacks. A primary, non reliable source, with an axe to grind. Please hold off on yelling "Blatantly false!" until you understand what a "citation" actually is.
LIES LIES LIES!! - I guess this time bolding everything wasn't enough, you just had to go with the ALL CAPS. Anyway. First the weaseling "except perhaps for the "iconic" moniker" sort of gives away more than half the issue, doesn't it? I mean, except for the important part, you maybe right. But even with that, you're not. The section title "iconic status in gender debates" is pure original research which somebody completely made up. Furthermore, there's a paragraph there with a [citation needed] tag, so yes, in fact I was removing "unsourced". Second, these are editorials and opinion pieces, which in no way establish "iconic status" in gender debates. Even if they were about this supposed status, they would not be reliable sources for the claim. What you would need here is academic or comprehensive sources which actually talks about this controversy being iconic - and editorials and opinion pieces, being merely (cherry picked) anecdotes, don't qualify. Please read WP:RS again. And stop it with the obnoxious accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) no, citing to an article that quotes somebody is not citing to the person quoted, 2) no one is yelling at you, quite the contrary, they are engaging with you peacefully and listening to your concerns with thought and care instead of merely dismissing you, and 3) thirdly, don't used the word "cherry-picked" in a tu quoque line of argumentation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously saying that when someone writes LIES LIES LIES!! then that's ... "engaging with you peacefully"? That that constitutes "listening to your concerns with thought and care"? Really? Are you being daft? Or maybe you're trying to be humorous? I can't tell if this is just blatant dishonesty or particularly egregious stupidity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really good work, many thanks for all your efforts. By the way, I have sort-of managed to get Google news working. There is actually a service called "Google Newspapers" - it's far less useful than the old Google news service because it only deals with newspapers rather than all news sources, but it does at least produce a reasonable number of results. Here's the link: [42] - there might be a few more articles there to add to your already very impressive collection. Anyway this also further debunks the claim about Google not having news results.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI (and as we've already establish about 5 times), Google news no longer functions properly for any articles more than a month old. Try Google newspapers if you really must use Google to search for news (though you'll still usually be better off with Highbeam)--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its Google, and its news. Call it what you want. I asked the guy that removed Google news from the AFD search header, to add Google newspaper in its place. Dream Focus 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any info that isnt already in the relevant articles to those articles. The minor kerfuffle can be easily covered in Glenn Sacks article. Most of the coverage was superficial and fleeting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was coverage in UK newspapers at the time, though not much seems to show up on Google now. The article should also say more about the now persistent ongoing low-level use of this phrase, which is extraordinarily tiresome. RomanSpa (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversy&oldid=1137642895"