Talk:Time's Up (organization)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Logo

Please see upload request at Wikipedia:Files for upload § Time's Up logo. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Time's Up at Tribeca

Hi all,

Saturday I had the opportunity to attend the first big Time's Up event at the Tribeca Film Festival. Some pictures are on Commons here: commons:Category:Time's Up event at the 2018 Tribeca Film Festival. Not sure which, if any, would be suitable to include here. For example, I thought about adding File:Reclaiming the Narrative (82125).jpg (panel with Mira Sorvino, Amber Tamblyn, Cynthia Erivo, Lupita Nyong'o, and Michaela Angela Davis), but didn't know if it would quite make sense without a lot of context. Pinging a few users who have been active on this page: @Arianna the First, Emir of Wikipedia, HenryBarnill, Nodekeeper, and Lonehexagon: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think if the event is mentioned there is wrong with an image being included. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Time's Up Legal Defense Fund

Hi all - Can an editor help me add the following information to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund section? I've drafted with proper sourcing, below:

Lawyer Roberta Kaplan and public affairs executive Hilary Rosen co-founded the Time’s Up legal defense fund, which had raised $22 million as of October 2018 to provide legal defense for sexual violence victims, especially those who experienced misconduct in the workplace. It has access to over 780 attorneys. According to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) which administers the fund, about 40% of those requesting help are women of color and 65% of them are low-income, from industries like construction, food services, and the military.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John at SKDKDigital (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done These are several claims all rolled into two sentences, when they should be separated for clarity. As for the claim regarding Rosen's position as founding co-chair, I think a source from the NWLC would be appropriate. Also, the claim which states "According to the NWLC" is actually referenced by PR Week, which should have been stated as "According to PR Week, NWLC states that ....." which is very difficult to pull off. If the information is coming from NWLC, then it should be posted by them (as it should be for the Rosen claim). Thank you for your help on this. Regards,  Spintendo  15:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I've found a New York Time's source for the requested information and am providing updated text according to what is reported in the story. Please see here:

Ms. Tchen was a founder of the organization’s signature initiative: a legal-defense fund for women in all industries who experienced sexual harassment at work... The other co-founders of the fund are the lawyer Robbie Kaplan; Fatima Goss Graves, the president and chief executive of the National Women’s Law Center; and the communications strategist Hilary Rosen.

References

Tina Tchen was also announced as the new Chief Executive Officer of Time's Up, which I believe warrants a new addition to the history section of the article, as well as the knowledge panel for the page. Is an editor available to assist with those changes as well? John at SKDKDigital (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Thank you for implementing the updates on the Tina Tchen article. Are you able to make an edit to this knowledge panel here indicating that Tina Tchen is the current CEO?

John at SKDKDigital (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

SKDKnickerbocker and the Legal Defense Fund?

Hey everyone, I have no idea how Wikipedia works but I've been looking at this page on and off, and I noticed some information disappearing. Ignoring the allegations against Biden, and whether or not that controversy belongs on this page, I think that the editing war went too far, and some crucial, relevant information was lost. Specifically, all references to SKDKnickerbocker providing PR for the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund were deleted. See this revision history chunk for an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time%27s_Up_%28movement%29&type=revision&diff=947638276&oldid=947517432

I'm not knowledgable on how this website works, so I won't make the changes, but if someone with more skill than myself could add that piece of information to where it's relevant in this article, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3075:780:A879:4594:FEFD:B8B4 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Challenged content

I have challenged recently added content, as reflected here. This content is not supported by sufficient reliable sources, especially in a BLP-implicating area. Even if there were RS supporting this content, it would be undue weight, at least as written. Editors should be aware that WP:ONUS and WP:BLP instruct that this material must not be restored absent firm consensus. Neutrality^talk 14:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to update introduction and infobox

Hello, I'm User:SFerguson for Time's Up and I work for TIME'S UP Foundation. As a young movement and organization, there's been a lot of change since we began and I'm here to see if I can help with this article as it evolves. To get started, I've been looking at some things we might do to improve the quick snapshot of information that readers get from the introduction and infobox. I'd love to get other editors' feedback and help introducing these changes if they make sense.

Would it be reasonable to make these changes to the infobox:

• Key people: Add current TIME'S UP CEO Tina Tchen, remove Lisa Borders
• Add "Subsidiaries" and list TIME'S UP Now, TIME'S UP Foundation and Time's Up Legal Defense Fund
• Add "Status" and list the respective legal statuses of TIME'S UP Now as 501(c)(4) social welfare organization and TIME'S UP Foundation as 501(c)(3) charitable organization
• Add "Purpose" and use the statement: "Raising awareness and supporting victims of sexual harassment in the workplace across all types of industries"

For the introduction, the line about the funds raised and number of lawyers for the Legal Fund is over 2 years out of date.

• Here's what it says now: "As of December 2018, it has raised more than $22 million for its legal defense fund, and gathered nearly 800 volunteer lawyers."
• It could be updated to read: "As of 2020, the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund had raised $24 million and connected approximately 4,000 sexual harassment victims with legal counsel."

I'm really looking forward to helping out on this page and hope that editors can share some feedback. Let me know what you think! SFerguson for Time's Up (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Hello, I'm also an employee of TIME'S UP Foundation and I am taking over from User:SFerguson for Time's Up for now in making requests on behalf of TIME'S UP on Wikipedia. Just like she did, I'll be following Wikipedia's guidelines for conflict of interest and will use Talk page requests, and always be transparent.

Thank you to User:9H48F who has made some of the changes requested by my colleague above. There are a few things remaining that were not added, so I'm sharing these again in hopes someone can help or give some feedback on what's possible here.

Can these changes be made in the infobox:

• Add "Subsidiaries" and list TIME'S UP Now, TIME'S UP Foundation and Time's Up Legal Defense Fund
• Add "Status" and list the respective legal statuses of TIME'S UP Now as 501(c)(4) social welfare organization and TIME'S UP Foundation as 501(c)(3) charitable organization
• Add "Purpose" and use the statement: "Raising awareness and supporting victims of sexual harassment in the workplace across all types of industries"

Thanks for any help! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome Hope with Time's Up. I didn't include the purpose because typically Wikipedia does not include mission statements per WP:PROMO / WP:MISSION. I think the lede is appropriate already, but maybe should include "in the workplace" at the end of the first sentence. 9H48F (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, User:9H48F. I see what you're saying, so I'm wondering what would be more appropriate for the "Purpose" parameter in the infobox. Is something shorter better? I see that on the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation page it says "Advocacy and protests against racial discrimination" for that parameter, so would something like "Advocacy and support for victims of workplace sexual harassment" be ok?

Also, what do you think about adding the Subsidiaries and Status details?

Thanks again for any help! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hope with Time's Up, thanks for calling my attention to the BLM foundation page. I've added a purpose, the subsidiaries and status info. 9H48F (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems the Edit request is fulfilled. Can we mark it as Accepted? Ferkjl (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ferkjl I believe so, wasn't sure how to do that. Thanks 9H48F (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@9H48F: It’s pretty easy. You have to add a pipe after the “request edit”, and the correct parameter, per Template:RE/I. Ferkjl (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help here User:9H48F. I do have some other suggestions for the page, so I'll be back soon and hope you or others will be able to continue helping. Thanks again! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Request about Website content

Hello, I have a new request for this page. As I explained before, I'm an employee of TIME'S UP Foundation and I want to help with this page, while following Wikipedia's rules about conflict of interest. In the last few days, someone added a note on the Website part of the page, stating that it doesn't have any citations. I was wondering if the content about the website is needed at all? I've not seen any similar details on other pages about social movements or organizations like ours, and as far as I know, the TIME'S UP website hasn't received press coverage. Should the section be deleted? Thanks for any help! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree there was nothing useful or notable in that section; I removed it. Thank you! Suriname0 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Hope with Time's Up (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Request about History and Founding signatories content

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)

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)

@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) 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) 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) Ritchie333, look at you and your tools. :) My tool belt is empty. :( --ARoseWolf 14:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC) @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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Request about Purpose and Organization content

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)

 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)

@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)

@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 {{edit COI|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)

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)

• 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)

New request August 2021

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. and Time's Up Now, which is a 501(c)4 non-profit that can be involved in political activity and is the advocacy arm of the organization.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for your reply, @Valereee: Basically my aim is to make sure that it's clear to readers the roles the two entities play within the organization. I understand you're not sure about adding this, so I've removed the edit request for now and will leave this in case other editors have any thoughts about it. Hope with Time's Up (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

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)

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