Talk:Miss America protest

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scbloom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

coverage

This received a lot of attention in the press, and was the first time that radical feminism achieved any significant media coverage outside of semi-obscure left-wing publications. Before 1968, "second-wave" feminism in the U.S. seems to have consisted mainly of government lobbying and the Betty Friedan book... AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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 was merge into Miss America protest. -- — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The article No More Miss America, about a single brochure distributed at a single protest, cannot be materially expanded, while this article about the Miss America protest is lacking content. The protest is notable and deserves expansion. Merging this related content here would help advanced that purpose. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you would want to expand the pamphlet article; it contains a fairly thorough summary as it is. Not necessarily opposed to merge, but don't see any strong need for it either... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that's the point. You can't expand the pamphlet article and it's not notable enough to justify an article of its own. Meanwhile, this article is also relatively short and could use more substance. Thus the rationale to merge the two articles. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if there's only a strong reason to merge if you think that the "No More Miss America" article should be deleted, but you haven't really directly presented a case for deleting that article.... AnonMoos (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I've proposed. This is a merger proposal, not a request for deletion. I understand that you created the No More Miss America article and may be attached to it. Please understand I am not proposing that this very informative content be deleted, only moved and integrated into this, the primary article, Miss America protest. The No More Miss America article contains valuable content that could be found much more readily in the primary article by those interested in the topic. The No More Miss America pamphlet was produced by the organizers of the Miss America protest. It was not used at any other time and apparently has no greater notability than that offered it by the parent event, the protest itself.

The No More Miss America article is currently 5,568 bytes (5.5 KB); when it was created on 3 Sept 2008, it was 5,124 bytes (5.1 KB). After 3+ years, I think we can safely assume it will not grow very much in the future. The article is, after all, about a single pamphlet, which is in itself a very short form of publication. The Miss America protest article is currently 10,324 bytes (10.3 KB); when it was created on 14 May 2008 it was 1,540 bytes (1.5 KB). The first 3 paragraphs of the No More Miss America article are borrowed from the Miss America protest article, summarizing information already contained there. Were you to remove those three paragraphs, all you would have left is the list of ten points outlined in the pamphlet, shrinking it's size by about 25%. The fact that the No More Miss America article summarizes the content of the parent event is strong enough to suggest that the No More Miss America article about the pamphlet should be merged with the Miss America protest article.

Wikipedia guidelines for article length suggest that articles should be split when they approach 100 KB. Any article under 40 KB length "does not justify division". Upon merging No More Miss America and Miss America protest, the combined article would total 15.8 KB, still well under the threshold for considering a split. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge. The two articles have too much in common, and one is neither distinct enough nor significant enough as a sub-topic to stand on its own. In fact, No More would have no significance at all without the main topic. Allreet (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Contrary to what is said above, I did not create the other article (just noticed comment)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

immediate cultural impact

The TV coverage at the time was quite dismissive and unsympathetic, from what is said in the Susan J. Douglas book. Wanting to ban beauty pageants could seem to be Victorianly prudish, while advocating against the wearing of bras could seem loose and lascivious, probably leaving many ordinary TV viewers confused... AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Origin of "bra-burning"

Although it seems to be established that no bras were burned in Atlantic City in 1968, news reports mentioned bra burning. In 1968 a bra burning took place on the campus of UCW in Aberystwyth, This bra burning was inspired by reports of bra burning in America - this presumably was the Atlantic City event although the exact date of the Aberystwyth bra burning is not known. The large bra was difficult to ignite with a cigarette lighter and smelled strongly of rubber as it burned. I will see if I can track down other participators and get more details - my memory is a bit vague. IainWallace (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless it significantly contributed toward establishing the "bra-burning" myth or stereotype, it might not be fully relevant to this article. AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Backlash" Weasel/POV

The "backlash" subsection seems to merit {{weasel}} and {{pov}} tags. Any disagreement? Calbaer (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not directly about the event at all, but about how the "bra burning" myth/stereotype caught on, and it's rather awkwardly phrased, but I'm not sure I see any weaseling... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No More Miss America section

This four paragraph section about a "pamphlet" appears to be overkill for an article that's supposed to be about the protest itself.

First, I can find no evidence or references supporting the fact that it was handed out as a pamphlet on the day of the protest. The only form I can find is as a press release, in which it speaks of the protest in the future tense.

Second, the release's 10 points are already listed in a previous section. If the content of the pamphlet is so notable, perhaps it meets an article of its own. But the lengthy description distracts from the overall article and I believe the section should be condensed into a paragraph or two at most.

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 08:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 08:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"if you want meat, go to the butcher" was an iconic and transformative protest sign seen nationally at this time.

"if you want meat, go to the butcher" was an iconic and transformative protest sign seen nationally at this time.

This was the last Miss America pageant, or indeed major network content of any kind, to feature the outgoing 'square' themes and fashion, to which the pageantry itself was a send-off.

It seems other editors here insist on a source or reference for these facts to appear. Anyone care to help out? Ari bn Bem (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Blue Riband, the editor who reverted your edits because they were not supported by any sources. You could go online to find news reports that specifically mention the sign and the end of pagents using a theme. You would then have to use an inline citation to that news article. If a magazine article or book mentioned them those would also be acceptable sources. Take a look at WP:SOURCES. Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia and the policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. Blue Riband► 17:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I am partly speaking from memory as I was observing this and all social conditions at that time, I know plenty has been written about this event and was wondering if somebody could help me find a good source. Ari bn Bem (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if you or I were personally at the protest and saw the sign, or recalled seeing it on TV or in a newspaper, our memories are not verifiable. This article is old but you can start here for ideas on how to find sources. Blue Riband► 17:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)