Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC Which version of this content is more in keeping with policies on BLPs, including RS, NPOV and due weight?

The following is the old and proposed versions of the same content which is at dispute. The old version was reached under a consensus of editors at the time in 2008. The new version claims to address some policy concerns. Any insight into which version may serve the subject and our readers best is appreciated.

(old version from 2008 consensus)

Reactions to Bindel's journalism

Bindel's writing on gender reassignment surgery and transgender issues, has caused controversy in the transgender and greater LGBT communities. Most notably an article she wrote in 2004 that compared transexuals to "the cast of Grease" resulted in an apology from the newspaper and from Bindel herself for the "tone" of the article. In 2007, she also went on BBC Radio 4's Hecklers debate to propose that "sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation".

Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference, she was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award, which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. The nomination attracted a protest against Stonewall outside the event from parts of the Trans and Queer communities and mixed support from attendees of the awards. Bindel's follow-up piece to the protest in the Guardian newspaper caused even more widespread discomfort, when she stated she, as part of the "lesbian and gay" movement, did not want to be "lumped in" with transgender or bisexual people or others with "odd sexual habits".

In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign.

(new version proposed)

Reactions to Bindel's views on transgenderism

Bindel's writing on gender reassignment surgery and transgender issues, has caused controversy in transgender communities. Most notably an article she wrote in 2004 that cast transexual people as ungenuinely transitioning and ridiculing their experiences resulted in an explanation from the newspaper and apology from Bindel for the poor tone used. Bindel stood by her views that "people should question the basis of the diagnosis of male psychiatrists, 'at a time when gender polarisation and homophobia work hand-in-hand.'" She noted that "Iran carries out the highest number of sex change surgeries in the world," and that "Surgery is an attempt to keep gender stereotypes intact. It is precisely this idea that certain distinct behaviours are appropriate for males and females that underlies feminist criticism of the phenomenon of ‘transgenderism’." In 2007, she presented on BBC Radio 4's "Hecklers", a series in which someone argues a provocative thesis, to postulate that "sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation".

In 2008 Bindel was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award. The awards event was protested from parts of the trans and queer communities with mixed support from attendees of the event. In Bindel's follow-up piece to the protest, "It's not me. It's you.", she expressed her opinion that the protest was as much about "Stonewall for refusing to add the T (for transsexual) on to the LGB (for lesbian, gay and bisexual)." She also stated that as a longtime active member of the lesbian community she felt uncomfortable with the increasing inclusion of sexuality and gender-variant communities into the expanding LGBT "rainbow alliance" - "the mantra now at "gay" meetings is a tongue-twisting LGBTQQI." She also expressed frustration at being criticized for expressing opionins on trans issues while simultaneously being told to be inclusive to trans people and issues.

Comments

• Support the proposed version as I edited it to eliminate what I saw was wobbly sourcing (blogs mainly), POV writing and missing the view of the subject of the BLP. The section is over half the article content and mitigates the 30+ years this person has been working to fight violence against women. This covers a few articles she has written on trans issues yet, IMHO, WP:Coatracks to suggest a movement against the BLP subject when the subject is simply expressing her opinion on trandgenderism, whether one agrees with her or not. I'm not opposed to the content but it must comply with policies. I also have no history with the subject or the London Transfeminist Group at the heart of the protest, those edit-warring for the older version will have to speak for themselves in that regard. -- Banjeboi 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think your proposal seems reasonable. -->David Shankbone 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the 2008 consensus version There was an extensive discussion from 18 - 24 November 2008. This discussion involved a wikipedia administrator. There were differences of opinion during this discussion but they were resolved and a consensus was agreed. On 15 April 2008 the Benjiboi rewrote the article ignoring the previous consensus and removing factual referenced material. ZoeL (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've invited that Admin here to behold the work they are being credited. You may want to relook at those sources, blogs and Indymedia will not work. The content removed wasn't supported by reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If you believe sources are not reliable please discuss them, there are plenty of others we can use. This selection of sources was decided on following debate last year. I've already updated one source. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • We are discussing them. All the blogs and Indymedia must go, the rest have to be used accurately without POV. If these were approved by concensus that consensus was mistaken, sorry that happenned. -- Banjeboi 14:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Why must Indymedia go? Consensus on this source was reached here. There are currently no self-published blogs cited as sources that I can see, the closest thing is Dr.Petra's blog and we can certainly replace that if necessary. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
          • That discussion was more broadly discussing the title of the section, which was still off and not about the sourcing. We can ask at WP:RSN if yu really aren't seeing why that's not going to fly as a source. All the blogs should go, if you have any other reliable sources now is the time to present them. -- Banjeboi 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
            • No, that was a discussion on the whole section. The title of the section just got a lot of discussion - people didn't have as many points to raise on the other bits. Happy to refer this to WP:RSN, other sources were discussed but not used but we could replace the source if that's the consensus or administrator view. As for the blogs it's only self-published blogs that are a major issue as per WP:BLP Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Actually you stated "Consensus on this source was reached", it wasn't. That source wasn't specifically discussed, at all it seems unless there were other sourcing discussions. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
                • A version was posted up for comments that included sources and the reasoning for those sources. Changes were made based on those comments. The eventual version was accepted. Why is that not consensus? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • That may have been consensus but is far different then a critical look at if the sourcing was acceptable. There didn't seem to be a focussed discusion on this source, as you allege or even a general sourcing discussion on the reliabiliyty of these sources. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • You seem to be in the minority in terms of your views on the sources and interpretation of wikipedia policy regarding BLP - it might help if you very explicitly stated which sources you feel are problematic and why. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I'm only in the minority on this talkpage, nevertheless I will again state that all the blogs and Indymedia should be removed along with the content they are supporting. Sadly this looks to entail a visit to the RSN board since editors here seem incapable of following policy. -- Banjeboi 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You have still not said why you do not consider indymedia to be an acceptable source. ZoeL (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the original (2008) version. The current wording was discussed at length and represents the consensus view on a journalist who admits herself that she's controversial. We've been trying to address Benjiboi's issues and some of the edits proposed have indeed been made but there has been an unwillingness to discuss the existing version on a point by point basis and instead an attempt to force through a flawed rewrite by claiming it as the baseline by throwing around undefended Coatrack and POV claims and working from there. I believe I've demonstrated that I'm more than willing to engage in a debate on changes but that needs to be a two-way street. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC).
  • Just because a writer handles subjects deemed controversial doesn't lend them to be vilified in an encyclopedia. The only edits you haven't reverted have been ones that don't touch this entire sweeping POV and wobly sourced section. And the rest only after I put up a fight. I'm sorry to say I edit-warred but hopefully now we can put an end to this and help you both understand that our sourcing and neutrality policies benefit everyone concerned. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Again, I've tried to discuss this matter with you but you have refused to engage, just making sweeping POV and wobbly source allegations. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The writing is POV and I gave you several examples, the sourcing is indeed wobly and has to be addressed. -- Banjeboi 14:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • You believe it is POV despite being a consensus view but will not discuss when rebutted. You believe the sourcing is wobbly but will not discuss. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
          • You've rebutted and it's already been discussed, and here we are discussing it more. Sourcing discussion seems to be right above this comment thread. -- Banjeboi 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I see no discussion on my detailed response to you under the "outdent" above. RFPs are a mechanism to get comment and discussion on an issue but you are unwilling to discuss exactly what is wrong with the old version and are using it as a method to push through changes. As such, I believe this is an abuse of the RFP process. I guess we need to seek administrator input to progress this further? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For the avoidance of doubt as I've seen COI claims elsewhere, I'd like to draw people's attention to the "More references requested" section above in which I mention that I've sourced a couple of press releases about the protests on behalf of the London Tramsfeminism group - the group didn't actually organise the protest, just attempted to get some press coverage for it. The consensus version from last year represents extensive discussion on the issue to avoid COI issues however and not my personal version and I would strongly encourage anyone commenting here to go and read the archives and indicate that they have done so if they suspect COI issues or think that this version is unduely biased. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Zoe is one of the most common names of transwomen in the UK, along with Jenny, Sarah, Nicola and others - hence the number of Zoes on this topic! Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It's good that you're disclosing part of role you played in protesting the subject of this BLP. As one of the chief organizers of a protest you likely do have a COI so positioning yourself as the main goto editor and de facto gatekeeper on a BLP article who you have helped organized protests against seems like a really bad idea for any article. That in that role you have orchestrated using negative POV language and negative content sourced poorly is exactly why we have COI policies. You may be able to constructively edit elsewhere but your edit-warring to retain negative and badly sourced content here has been a detriment to this article. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I was not one of the "chief organisers" of the protest - in fact I wasn't involved in the actual organisation at all - and have clearly disclosed my involvement in this case twice now. My "edit warring" as you put it has merely been to protect the consensus version that was discussed in 2008 that was put in place due to random edits (See history) and to integrate some of the changes that others (Including yourself!) have posted. If you believe this is a problem, I suggest you stop badmouthing me on wikipedia and being generally disruptive and unhelpful and go and get an administrator. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
        • That's the first bit of information I felt was in keeping with policy. We really shoudl get some admin support on this. -- Banjeboi 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the 2008 concensus version Seems that the discussion previously reached an acceptable version for this article, and there is no need for it to be changed at this time. Benjiboi seems to be determined that their edit be pushed forward, without any discussion, when obviously some discussion needs to be had if any rewrite of this article is to happen. so unless an open discussion is going to happen, i see no need for the article to be changed. georgiagrrl —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC). — georgiagrrl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Actually this is that discussion. And no, our policies dictate that "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". I tried to do that but the two editors edit-warred to re-add it. -- Banjeboi 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support the proposal, as this needs to become a more balanced biography if it is to be of any value. Mish (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of her controversial style of journalism, and the hostile responses, could include her writing on prostitution and women who murder violent partners (rather than focus on one issue). Mish (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the 2008 consensus version There are many referenced sources for the statements that are in the consensus version. The subject matter is always going to be controversial and while that should be noted, and discussed where relevant, it is not the place of an encyclopaedia to pick and choose which aspects of a subject it wants to show. Nor should an article be subjected to point of view pushing, especially bt someone who has a history of being disruptive and has been "page banned" as a result of their actions in the past. Discuss changes by all means, but don't go jumping in head first and causing a fight through misunderstandings over rules, and poor attempts at rules-lawyering. --86.165.108.181 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC) [This comment by Zoe.R (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC). Previously signed without username due to cookies issue].
  • You need to step off commenting on me and stick to the content at hand. You haven't explained why poorly sourced negative content that violates our policies is acceptable, it's not. -- Banjeboi 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't need to do anything. You need to put a decent, logical and non-viewpoint-pushing reason for changing the article. You have failed to do this at every turn. --Zoe.R (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually per No personal attacks we state that comments should be about content not contributors. And my decent, logical, and NPOV reasons for updating this article are quite simply. We must follow policies on WP:BLPs, reliable sourcing and Neutral point of view. If we remove the POV negative commentary and the poor sources - per policy - and cite the subject's own responses to the criticism - again per policy - we end up with the proposed version. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the 2008 consensus version I have to say, I feel those wishing to change the article are looking for excuses to edit out the truth about Bindel's more extreme views. There's a time and place for such apologists, but they should not be trying to use Wikipedia as their platform. --jek (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's hardly accurate, they're all right there for the world to see whereas that prior concensus version presented only the most negative content and utilized poor sources to do so. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my view. They were not poor sources, and they certainly were not poor sources. It seems you have a point of view you want to promote on this page, and that is not what Wikipedia is about. --jek (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • It's good you understand what POV is now we need to remove the poor sources and fix the POV negative content to more accurately reflect the reliable sources and add the subject's own response to criticism, per policies. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• How did we end up with three people named Zoe all commenting on this RfC? Anyway, I support the proposed version as clearly superior. Avruch ^T 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 'clearly superior' is not a valid argument, please give reasons LinaMishima (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure its left to you to determine which arguments are valid and which are not, but since you asked nicely I'll expand my comment. The proposed version includes essentially all the same information as the old version, but avoids the POV presentation. The 2008 version is heavy on position-taking ("Despite continuing disapproval" etc.) The primary difference between the two is neutrality - the new version has it, the prior version does not. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy, or for emphasising disapproval over the views and work of an individual. Last point - the referencing for the proposed section is better, as well. Blogs and advocacy sites simply don't cut it for a BLP. Avruch ^T 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not me who decided - it's policies like WP:CONCENSUS. Wikipedia is not a vote, and "clearly superior" is a statement of personal opinion, rather than reasoned argument. Thank you for finally bringing your actual reasons into consideration. And as for them, you are right, the new version has POV - that of Bindel again, as I state below. It is frankly absurd that anyone can claim a 'reactions' section to be balanced when filled with the author's own statements - especially when no effort has been made to find arguments to that effect from other third party sources. Whilst the original's wording could be improved to be more factually based, the new version fails in it's attempt to do this by going the other way. And a comparison of sources would show that although a few blogs were removed, one remained, and many other good sources were removed. As for wikipedia being a forum for emphasising disapproval or approval - it is not wikipedia's place to judge, only to relay the sources, and if that is what the sources state, then wikipedia will emphasise that. LinaMishima (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The version posted above isn't in fact the current version on the page - the references in the current version are slightly different. The one self-published blog has been removed and replaced with direct links to the motion documents, I'm not sure which sites would count as "advocacy sites" however. Bear in mind that the discussion is occuring between a newspaper columnist and the wider community - to only publish articles from newspapers quickly leads to POV problems where only Bindel's view will get published in the article - it's exactly this uneven playing field that's lead to her being so controversial in the first place. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, and at least one of those failed verification. And although you've reluctantly accepted every other edit to the article you seem incapable of handling this material in NPOV manner. That's why we're hoping to get uninvolved editors to have a look. -- Banjeboi 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
          • The cited document clearly mentions Bindel - page 8. If you have concerns about the source, please state them explicitly. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I did but perhaps her name being mispelled was the issue. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support 2008 concensus, STRONG OPPOSE proposed version: Quite frankly, the new proposal completely misses the mark. An attempt has been made to falsely render the passage 'neutral', without understanding the very meaning of the policy. WP:NPOV does not mean balanced coverage without any direction, it means to express the facts as written in their relevant weights. The new proposal marginalises the reactions (the very point of the section) in favour of providing instead Bindel's own opinion on such matters. This entirely misses the point of the section, focusing on Bindel's POV, rather than the overal WP:NPOV of the sum of all reactions. and as such falls foul of the intent behind the manual of style and general good writing guidelines. The new version also uses the wrong sources for some of its points, and actually trims the references far beyond just removing indymedia and blogs (arguably, one was left in). Removal of verifiable quality sources like that, and needless use of weaker sources, is the sort of change that cannot be allowed. The older version could do with better sources, however here we will suffer from the reality of limited interest subjects - sadly feminism is not considered worthy of heavy mainstream coverage. Similarly, a minor mention of supportive reactions could be included, however WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that this would be a secondary aspect, since the weight of coverage does disagree. Additional writing regarding reactions to other aspects of her writing is also needed. LinaMishima (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

More than just presenting the facts in their weights, we should take care not to write the text as though we (as in Wikipedia) were taking a position. In my view, the new version improves on the old by removing the sense that Wikipedia has an opinion on the subject. Your assertion that we should exclude or limit the point of view of Bindel or her supporters because criticism is more common misunderstands our responsibility to living subjects. We shouldn't give sole hearing to criticism as though it has gone unanswered when it has, in actuality, not. The response of a subject to criticism, if reliably sourced, is relevant content. Avruch ^T 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The new version features more of Bindel's comments upon the reaction than it does of the reactions themselves. Whilst I agree that we can feature the author's response, it should not, as it does in the new version (count the phrases, it is quite clear), take up the majority of the section. Furthermore, some of the 'responses' listed by bindel bear little relation to the reactions themselves, and so are wholly inappropriate (yes, you can argue that as part of her full response they work, however taken out of context they become a meaningless addition). There are other ways of removing the weasel words - such as by simply removing them or choosing less expressive phrasings. LinaMishima (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Avruch, what I should probably point out is that we shouldn't be looking at this discussion in terms of black and white. Just because we have been asked to decide between two pieces of copywrite doesn't mean that we can't suggest our own. Hopefully you can see my points, as I have recognised some of yours. I am personally looking for some more sources before attempting my own rewrite, but if you'd like to suggest now a new wording that draws on everyone's input, feel free. LinaMishima (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see balancing the second paragraph a bit better... but between an unbalanced and negative version and an unbalanced and positive version, I prefer the positive version. I think the proposed revision is more neutral, but I can understand how it can come across as the "subject's version of criticism." You're right, of course, that we don't need to make a binary choice. Some compromise between the two is probably the best solution, but in the absence of a compromise option I still prefer the new text. If there is still a blog among the references (quick glance didn't show one), by the way, feel free to take it out. Avruch ^T 21:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, this is already the compromise version and the version on the current page does address the issues raised by Benjiboi that have either been more obvious or that they've been more willing to discuss. Would you agree that a more constructive way to proceed would be along the lines of the 2008 discussion, where we thrashed out appropriate wording for controversial sections rather than just completely rewriting bits? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you went through a process that still failed to adhere to policies. We simply can't source negative information on a BLP to poor sources, the disclaimer at the top of this page states that clearly. And NPOV is another core policy. As was stated above we don't present or advocate a section devoted to criticism labelled to her work as a journalist when the content all concerns her opinions and writing on trans issues - it's disingenuous - and we don't solely present the criticism when we have reliable sources with her response to that criticism, and we don't misrepresent sources to present a POV. We let the sources speak for themselves and all the blogs diminish the credibility of that prior consensus version. -- Banjeboi 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The present version adheres just fine to policies; there is no poorly sourced negative information in this article. The proposed version, on the other hand, clearly does not adhere to policy. It strips out everything but Bindel's side of the story, and removes significant referenced information - most notably but not limited to her no-platforming by the NUS Women's Campaign. It's also a bit ridiculous to claim that the criticism section is dedicated near-solely to her comments about trans issues when that's precisely Bindel's such a controversial figure and has actively courted controversy in that area; it certainly wasn't her opinions on rape or sex trafficking that got her no-platformed. Rebecca (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually neither the old version or the present version do. It's troubling that these problems don't alarm you. This is a blog unacceptable for sourcing here, another blog, also unacceptable, Indymedia is also not a reliable source here and this source doesn't even mention Bindel, I've now tagged it three times for {{Failed verification}} but ... surprise, it's being edit-warred over by the same editors simply determined to abuse our NPOV and RS policies. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a soapbox to vilify Bindel, she is a living human being and BLP applies to her as well as every other BLP. The NUS platform issue, BTW was also sourced to a blog so I didn't include it in my proposal. It's now, sourced, by one of the two sources to an orginal document so I'm unsure what weight to place on it. An original document is less convincing than if a newspaper wrote that the NUS' action was noteworthy. They seemed to vote ona lot of things so until that issue is worked out it likely should be left off. -- Banjeboi 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The source you just referenced: this clearly does mention her in Motion 3 although they have incorrectly spelled Bindel as Bindle. ZoeL (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll address the Bialogue one now you've raised it, I wasn't aware it was in there. Dr.Petra I would say is not self-published, so not an issue - we may need outside administraotr guidance on it. Anyway, alternative sources can be found for both, I'm sure. You've been asked directly why Indymedia is not appropriate but have not responded. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (Bialogue discussion is already in a seperate section, will continue it there) Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The NUS document might be OK although I'd rather have the RSN rule on it, the rest of teh sources are not acceptable, especially to sling mud ona BLP. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the 2008 consensus version. I'm not saying the current version is perfect, but the new version introduces many more problems imo:
  • I don't see why "the cast of Grease" mention needs to be dropped, since that's her own words.
  • We can't say "She noted ... that "Surgery is an attempt to keep gender stereotypes intact ..."", because that implies she's noting a fact - instead it should be "She claims" or "She asserts" for that bit. (And note that being against gender roles isn't controversial here, the controversy is the criticisms against transsexuality.)
  • It's unclear why reference to LGBT is removed (I don't care if we drop "greater"), especially as the new version is happy to note later on "trans and queer communities".
  • I appreciate the attempt to remove the possible POV issue of "Despite ..." at the start of the 2nd paragraph, but I don't see why the NUS vote of censure should be removed altogether. Similarly for the later bit about the NUS Women's Campaign.
  • The fact that she's a "longtime active member of the lesbian community" isn't relevant (if we mention that, we should also mention that trans and bi people who criticise her may also be "longtime active members").
  • There is a problem that it's implied that "the increasing inclusion of sexuality and gender-variant communities into the expanding LGBT "rainbow alliance"" is factual, when it should be attributed as being her opinion. Similarly, it presents "being criticized for expressing opionins on trans issues while simultaneously being told to be inclusive to trans people and issues" as fact, when that would be a matter of opinion.
  • I don't see why the "odd sexual habits" bit is removed - again, it's her own words, I don't see that she is being misrepresented here? Mdwh (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Still in favour of some further changes. @mdwh. You make some interesting points: in turn:

• • I agree that the reason(s) for offense needs to be explained (e.g., the cast of grease), in the context of the timeline of the apologies, the protest and the subsequent response.
  • In the Hecklers debate she proposed a motion, and defended it.
  • The trans community were primarily involved (but not all the trans community, and not only the trans community) so, many in the trans community, and some in the wider LGBT community, would be more accurate, but not sure how you would validate that (certainly presenting the protest as including 'the' trans and greater LGBT community does not work - there were members of the wider LGBT community who were either against or not bothered about the protest.
  • Her being a longtime active member of the lesbian community is clearly worthy of mention in the biography of an openly lesbian feminist journalist
  • Her response was questioning the historic expansion of the lesbian and gay community to include people other than those identifying as lesbian and gay, as indicated by the acronym 'LGBT'.
  • It is her opinion, and that is what people object to, so it needs to feature. I am not sure it is even an issue factually - that appears to be her experience.
  • Odd sexual habits seems to be pulled out of context - she is questioning the development of the LGBT(etc.) movement out of the historic alliance between the lesbian and gay movements, seeing the more recent development placing together people simply on the basis of their having 'odd sexual habits' (i.e. presumably, as opposed to people with 'normal sexual habits'), so she is including lesbians and gay men in this statement. If odd sexual habits were to be retained, it would need to be unpacked more - and I'm not sure a biography is the best place to do that. Clearly there is plenty of room for discussion about whether issues of gender identity, sexual orientation, paraphilias, and so on should all be placed together as if they are a single issue - but not here. What she has done is raised the question, and the way she raised that question has caused problems, the way the sentence reads now inadequately expresses this.
  • In addition - the first sentence of that paragraph is misleading, the nomination was not made despite trans opposition - the nomination was made without reference to possible trans opposition, and trans opposition arose in response to the nomination. There had been little attention paid to Bindel's comments for at least two years prior to the nomination, following the work done by Whittle & PfC etc. to get apologies apart from Bindel's participation in the Heckler's debate. Had the award been made, that would have been despite the opposition, but it was not. Mish (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to referring to her as a "longtime active member of the lesbian community" at some point elsewhere in the article, but it shouldn't be used to try to add weight to her POV (the people she criticises, be it transsexuals or bisexuals, have been longtime active members too).
    • Whether or not "odd sexual habits" fits in with the rest of her argument, she is the one who makes that point, so evidently she thinks it fits with her argument. AIUI, she's claiming that the lesbian and gay movements changed to include what she views as "odd sexual habits". It's her words, it shouldn't be controversial to quote her here.
    • I agree that the "Despite" phrasing is controversial, and have no objection to changing that. But other than that, the new version introduces many POV issues imo, as I have listed. Mdwh (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you improving the sources for Bindel's critics if you feel that the ones presently there are insufficient, but the proposed alternative is nothing short of a whitewash. You cannot write about a figure whose main claim to fame, at least in recent years, has been her propensity for hate speech and according controversy, by reference only to her own spin on the issue and possibly turn around and claim to be neutral in doing so. The proposed alternative paragraph is a bit like having an article on David Duke that only refers to his opinions on how he thinks he's not a racist. Rebecca (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To use you example though we would, in fact, state Duke's response to criticism and we would avoid inflated criticisms and using unreliable sources for negative content. -- Banjeboi 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This response is disingenous: your version does not merely state Bindel's response to the criticism, it removes the criticism altogether (as well as several referenced facts relating to the backlash against her), and gives only her perspective. If your concern is sourcing, there's an abundance of alternatives out there; this sort of militant targeting of sources associated with one viewpoint is textbook Wikipedia POV-pushing. Furthermore, there is nothing in the present version that is "inflated"; please back this assertion up with actual evidence. Rebecca (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is not the point of a biography to be about the life and work of an individual? Much as I personally disagree with some aspects of what Bindel has said, and what she believes, I find her a stimulating (if controversial) writer. Comments like 'whitewash' seem to miss the point of why a biography exists. It does not exist as part of a campaign against an individual - and yet some of those here seem to see her biography as part of their wider campaign against her. This is a page about her, not about the reaction of part of the transgender community to her writing on transgender issues. From what I can tell, this was the purpose creating the article in the first place, not as a genuine biography. If giving a more balanced biography appears to some to be a whitewash, that is in part because the transgender issue is simply one part of the whole, and redressing that balance will necessarily make the transgender issues appear less dominant. There are other issues that have generated forceful reactions, and if the section about her journalism is to be fair, it should include those subjects as well (of which I have mentioned two earlier). If a piece is to be included that goes into detail about the transgender controversy, then it needs to be balanced by what she said that provoked the reaction, the response(s) to it, and her response(s) to that - because this is about her biography, not about the issues of some transgender people with her, per se. Pages devoted to transsexualism/transgenderism would be a better place to describe transphobia and so on, than a biography. I'm sorry, but when I looked at this page from before the proposed changes began to be implemented, it appeared more like a hatchet job focusing on one issue with a bit of biography thrown in - now it is beginning to look more like a biography which deals with the transgender controversy within the context of the reactions that can be generated by her journalistic writing - in that it still only speaks to the transgender issue, it is not genuinely about her journalism, but about that one issue. As well as the material that has generated controversy, some perspective that gives a different angle needs to be present as well (i.e., positive reactions to her writing). This is more problematic, because positive reactions tend not be as noteworthy as negative ones. Mish (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of a biography is to be about the life and work of the individual. This article, at present, makes a fair attempt at covering this; it discusses an overview of her career, with her activism on a range of feminist issues, and in a short section at the bottom, neutrally discusses her tenure at the Guardian, her associated courting of controversy through hardline transphobic statements, and the resulting public criticism of Bindel as a result.

The article as a whole does need more coverage of her activism on issues of prostitution, domestic violence, and sex trafficking. These issues have clearly been the central theme of her activist career, and there's a lot more that can be said about it. For one obvious thing, the description of Justice for Women's purpose, quoting from some obscure book, doesn't even match very well with what the organisation's own website says they're there for.

However, if we're talking - as you seem to be - about Bindel's career as a journalist, then I think it would be difficult to dispute that her time at The Guardian has been most well known for her attempts at vilifying the trans community. On any given Google search about Bindel that I can see, a majority of results relate to her attacks on the trans community. I used the analogy above, but discussing Bindel's journalistic career without referring to this issue is a bit like trying to discuss the political career of David Duke without mentioning his comments about race : inaccurate, biased and a bit ridiculous. This is by no means to say that the section shouldn't also discuss her other issues (it most certainly should, with appropriate weighting), but rather to take issue with the suggested whitewashing of the issue.

On the first two page of a Google search for "Julie Bindel", there are about half a dozen hits that are backlashes against her work. Trans doesn't feature too prominently in that lot, there's also response to "Why I hate men" and her recent work on prostitution. A search for just "Bindel" raises similar responses to entries like "Lesbianism is a choice". Personally, I would like to see the article expanded to include her other work - but if this is done in a balanced way I don't believe it would satisfy some of the people here because almost everything she writes is controversial. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with listing a) what she said, b) the response to that, and c) her response to that; what I have an issue with is eliminating b) entirely and most of a) as well, which is what Benji did. It was a selective and a biased rewrite of what was there, POV pushing, and not very subtle POV pushing at that. As I said above, it's pretty disingenous to start claiming that it somehow ceases to be a biography to have a fifth of an article on a figure whose primary claim to fame (at least in the last decade or so) is vilifying a minority group to discuss the person's attempts at vilification of said minority group. Rebecca (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

@Rebecca: I did not say it should not be in there. Appx 2/3 of the biography was about the trans issue, and even now the section on journalism is mostly about the trans issue. Bindel's biography is not about the trans issue, it is about her biography, and the trans issue is one part of that. Of course online searches will turn up lots of references - lots of trans people have been very busy raising the profile of this issue. However, to many people other things are more important - like the other writing and work that has taken up the majority of her time. The trans issue is only a small, but significant, aspect of her work. I am not aware that Benjiboi has any POV on this subject, beyond the content of the article; what he seems to be doing is trying to ensure that what is in the arcticle can be independently verified in the way any such article needs to be - whereas some of the existing contributers seem interested in the article simply because they have a POV on Bindel. I support their having their POV, and including the trans controversy, but not to have this dominate the biography of somebody deemed notable enough to warrant their own page. Bindel is not notable solely because of trans people's concerns with her, she is notable because she is one of the only openly lesbian feminist journalists in the UK, and fer her contribution to campaigning on human rights and women's issues. Mish (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the article could do with expansion to cover Bindel's earlier career in greater prominence. The article is short, and there's a lot that could be covered in greater detail; she's been around a while. Rather, my dispute is limited to the section concerning her journalistic career. This currently takes up about 1/5 of the article; not unreasonable, although it could be less in the future if the remainder were to be expanded.

The issue of her journalistic career is a very different one. This is not a matter of her activist work over decades; it's a matter of a few years worth of columns written in The Guardian. These touch on a range of issues, but a central focus of those columns has been her vilification of the trans community. Furthermore, most of the attention she has received as a columnist has been in the according controversies; up to and including the decision of respected feminist organisations to distance themselves from her as a result. This issue is a small part of her biography. It is not a small part of the necessary section on her journalistic career.

I never suggested, nor has anyone else here, that this should dominate the page, or that it is Bindel's sole claim to notability; the first would clearly be a matter of undue weight considering her long activist career, and the second would be verifiably wrong. Rather, I have argued for a neutral, appropriately-weighted coverage of her journalistic career that doesn't whitewash the significant controversy attached to it, or the subsequent backlash against being associated with her from feminist and queer organisations. Rebecca (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph here, under 'journalism':

>Bindel's writing on Gender reassignment surgery and transgender issues, has caused controversy in the transgender and greater LGBT communities. Most notably an article she wrote in 2004[10] that compared transexuals to "the cast of Grease" resulted in an apology from the newspaper[11] and from Bindel herself for the "tone" of the article. In 2007, she also went on BBC Radio 4's Hecklers debate to propose that "sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation".[12]

Could be re-written as follows:

>>Bindel's writing style is controversial, covering a range of issues such as domestic violence, prostitution <<<or other term>>>, feminism, lesbianism, and Barbie dolls <<<refs if necessary>>>. In 2004 she she wrote an article [10] that compared transexuals to "the cast of Grease", and the subsequent complaints resulted in an apology from the newspaper[11] and from Bindel herself for the "tone" of the article. In 2007, she was invited to participate on BBC Radio 4's Hecklers debate to present her view that "sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation"; Stephen Whittle of Press for Change and members of the audience debated this with her.[12]

Then deal with how, following the apology for 'tone' and discussion, some trans people still felt aggrieved by her views and the writing about trans from 2004/5, and censured Stonewall for nominating her for an award for her work in the (specifically) lesbian and gay community, include reference to the piece she wrote about wanting to be left alone in response to this, and the debate at Manchester University between her and Susan Stryker, chaired by Whittle.

If you like, I could do this, and source the relevant references where available (I am pretty sure what I have outlined above can be reliably verified from external sources), but am reluctant to add anything that replaces anything or will itself be removed. I'm quite happy to leave this to those who have already worked on this biography (I would prefer to work on a different biography, personally). Mish (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is also unacceptable. Bindel's columns about Barbie dolls and domestic violence haven't been particularly controversial; they're fairly mainstream feminist views. Her views about prostitution, while a bit more controversial, are also held by a rather large swathe of the feminist movement. The central controversial issue - the one that got her public appearances protested, that got feminist and queer organisations in the UK distancing themselves from her, and the one that meant that most third-wave feminists wouldn't touch Bindel with a barge pole - is her vilification of the trans community.

Your rewrite attempts to cast the issue as a bit of bickering between a few unhappy trans activists and an ordinary journalist. It carefully eliminates any reference to the notable organisations and people that pointedly distanced themselves from her over the issue; both those that were already in the article, and others that should've been picked up with a bit of basic research (Peter Tatchell being an obvious example).

Furthermore, most of your interpretation of events seems, well, eccentric and arbitrary. You've singled out a couple of Bindel articles on the subject (out of many) as turning points or somehow uniquely notable without any sources to justify this; unsurprisingly, considering your personal bias, they turn out to be two of the softest articles she's written (out of many very inflammatory ones) - why these particular articles, if you're not setting out to cast Bindel in a good light? Rebecca (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy with the rewritten paragraph - I believe "sex workers" is the currently accepted term that should be used. I'm reluctant to suggest inclusion of the Stryker debate just through lack of sources about what was actually said there. (PfC were going to put a recording of the webcast online but didn't as far as I'm aware - I know they're having trouble maintaining the web site at the moment.) Bindel was (more recently than the whole trans thing) involved in some research for parliament about sex workers that I know is also viewed as problematic in some circles, this probably has more mainstream appeal than the trans thing and should also be included. I'm happy to write something - as long as someone else from "the other side of the fence" is happy to review it and suggest changes before it goes up! Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (To be clear: I'm happy with this specific paragraph being rewritten, not addressing the other paragraphs for the moment) Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

@Rebecca - OK, I was referring to the thing about not trying women for murder who kill violent husbands - I happen to agree, but it was controversial, and provoked reaction as I recall. Barbie was tongue-in-cheek, sorry, I should have made that clear. I'm happy for references to genuinely notable organisations, PfC for example, inclusion. I am only aware of two, possibly three, articles before the Stonewall thing. I was only making a partial suggestion - I am quite clear that it is about more than some trans activists and an ordinary journalist - she is a lesbian feminist journalist. How representative the 'protesters' and oreganisations involved is a debatable issue - I don't think PfC, Gendys, Gender Trust, Beaumont Trust, etc. were involved (for example).

@Zoe. I'm not on the other side of the fence, although I don't have a problem with Bindel personally, and would be happy to look at what you write if you are happy for me to, although you have worked commendably hard on getting this right from what I can see. I would like this to get to a point which is 'fair' - that is all. Obviously that is difficult where strong and conflicting views are involved, and where people feel hurt. I take your point about the Stryker-Bindel debate, there seems to be nothing that points to it other than opinions about it, even though it did happen (I know because I watched it live on my PC); it is a shame PfC does not mention it, given Whittle organised it. Mish (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Going through the history, it is interesting that Bindel's research/writing on both prostitution and mariticide were included on this page at the beginning, fully referenced, but removed to make way for trans concerns without any discussion - they really ought to be put back in under journalism, especially as they were removed without discussion. I also noticed that the trans issue became the dominant issue on this page within days of it being created as a nominal biography - and the the focus on the Stonewall affair matches the subject itself as it happened (i.e., the page was written and edit-warred over happened at the same time as the events being described took place). It makes much sense to review what was established by detractors during a campaign against an individual in the light of hindsight some time later. Mish (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me at the edits in question? I don't mind doing the legwork to put back in anything that's been dropped. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, go back to shortly after the page was created (18th Sept), and you read this (and this is the extent of the bio):

>>> Julie Bindel (born 1970) is a British militant feminist writer. She has conducted extensive research into prostitution, which she opposes, and defended female victims of domestic violence who kill their husbands.[1] She works as a freelance journalist and has written for The Guardian[2]. She co-founded the group Justice For Women.

Then jump ahead two months to after the Stonewall nomination and the expansion of her biography in a way that half of it is about the trans issue (18th Nov)

>>> Bindel only writes non-fiction including news articles; interviews; as well as columns and comment/opinion pieces. Her primary areas of interest are lesbian rights, the modern anti-trafficking campaigns and defending female victims of domestic violence who comit Mariticide.[3]

It looks like it was this latter reference that was removed by Benjiboi in his initial edit on 15th April. I am suggesting that both reference to her writing/research on prostitution 9which went somewhere between Sept 18th & Nov 18th) and the original reference to women who kill violent partners both need to go back in (with whatever wording, i.e. sex-worker, people feel comfortable with), preferably as examples of the controversial style of her lesbian-feminist journalism (although clearly her work on prostitution goes beyond simple journalism).

Finally, I have been asked to declare my interest here - I have little interest in this subject specifically, I do have an academic interest in trans issues. I agree with a lot of what Bindel says on other issues, but I don't agree with most of what she says that specifically relate to trans people or their issues. My interest is to ensure that this becomes a more neutral biography about the person it is about, which includes the trans controversy, but is not dominated by it. I had nothing to do with her prior to the facebook campaign against her nomination, but found the abuse and bullying directed against her sickening, and the resulting bullying of anybody who pointed this out led me to feel more friendly towards her than I had done before. I have met her once, briefly, for a drink, with my partner. There is no COI in this matter on my part, certainly less than most of those contributing who were party to the campaign against her (I am not clear wikipedia discriminates between 'friends' and 'enemies' in terms of COI?). As I have been singled out and requested to be open about my own position, it is only right that all of the ten contributors to this discussion over the past few days do so also. So - off you all go then, what is your interest in this biography? I know what benjiboi's is already - I mentioned this page to him while we were both involved on an entirely different issue because I recognised and respected his coherence, impartiality and skill (I am assuming 'him' - apologies to Benjiboi if this is wrong). Mish (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bindel and the Bisexual Community

With greatest respect I have added in another reference regarding Bindel's remarks in her column of 8 October 2008. In this particular case the cited article is from Bialogue, a longstanding political action group based in the US working on behalf of the bi/pan/fluid & allied queer community. While aware that there is currently some discussion within the wikipedia community on the merits of using journal articles that are published using software products that can also be used as personal blogs, I ask the kind indulgence of this article's editors to take a stand for the inclusion of marginalized groups, while a case is made for the reliability of some of theses digests. Thank you CyntWorkStuff (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Understand the concern but we have sourcing policies for a reason. Similar to other issues, if this content is valid and notable enough it is likely covered in reliable sources and we should use those instead. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No there is not. The bi/pan/fluid community is to quote a wikipedia editor "the poor bastard child of the gay rights community -- that is, they get respect neither from the straight community nor from the gay community". We are the throw-away line, the dirty joke and the 2nd or 3rd after-thought of the "respectable" PC G & L Community. Not only is it NOT covered but with very little effort you can quicly discover that many straight, gay and lesbian people secretly agree with her. Aditionally if you check back thru the record you will find that I have been involved in editing this article for quite a while (dropped out from sheer exhaustion and needed a break from the sheer screeching evil of some of the anonymous editors). And for a quite while this citation had been accepted since it was simply considered part of the larger Bialogue website. CyntWorkStuf (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree. There are five remianing troubling sources here and they likely all should go. If these issues are substaintial they will be covered in reliable sources as is pointed out above. If they are discussed anywhere reliable then, they might not be that notable yet. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on the marginalised point, it's a major problem when dealing with people who have a national newspaper as a platform. However, a Livejournal link does look somewhat bad to readers even if it's OK on further investigation. Do they publish this elsewhere or is there another source we could use for it? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• We can't use Livejournal as a source on a BLP, where the strictest of standards are employed. We can use the subject's blog or journal to write about their beliefs, but we can't use a third party's blog or journal as a WP:RS about an individual. If what they write is particularly noteworthy, then it should appear in reliable sources either off- or on-line. -->David Shankbone 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We can, however, as you say, use the subject's journal to write about their beliefs - on Bindel. They're a notable group, and their opinion is relevant here. Rebecca (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, we can use Bindel's journal, not a third party's unless Bindel is writing the piece on there herself. -->David Shankbone 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Bindel's journal is not the subject here; the issue is the journal of a notable (enough to have their own article) organisation being used as the source for the opinion of said organisation about Bindel. How does that raise a BLP issue? Rebecca (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)The relevant section of WP:BLP, which is policy, states as follows:

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above). Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

That's the BLP issue. -->David Shankbone 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of it. I agree with what's written there: it's referring to cases where people try to include as fact things that are written in potentially questionable sources. It is nonsensical (and I've never seen it used before) to suggest that it means self-published works by notable people/organisations can't be used to cite their own opinions. This source is a perfectly acceptable one for said notable organisation's views on things; there are precisely zero BLP issues raised by using it to cite that, they are, in fact, critics of Bindel. Rebecca (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to misinterpret the phrase "Never use" - if editors insist on violating a BLP policy, it will have to go the BLP noticeboard. -->David Shankbone 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm more with David on this one, that Livejournal link just doesn't sit well there - it's not obvious enough to the casual observer about it's heritage. However, do we actually need it in there at all? We already have the lesbilicious one and I don't think we need any more citing than that? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dropping by from the admin board to have a closer look: so this has already been through formal dispute resolution? Banjeboi and David are spot-on. This isn't the first time Wikipedia has seen this kind of argument (on different topics, but the argument is always the same): The mainstream sources won't cover this, so we've got to lower the bar... There are three reasonable replies to that argument: no, no, and NO. We take that very seriously when the matter pertains to negative content on a living person's biography. Would David or Banjeboi please provide a bullet list of the disputed passages and sources? I'm going to file a request to have an admin edit the protected page to remove them: the burden of evidence rests on the shoulders of the people who wish to include material. Durova^Charge! 01:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not been any formal dispute resolution on this and David's views on this seem to be the same as mine - the source he's talking about here is one I'm uncomfortable with too and I don't believe it's even needed as a citation for the article. But, please, before any deletion is put into action, could we have the chance to replace anything deemed unsuitable rather than just deleting whole segments? As stated repeatedly, alternate sources are available but if we don't know which sources are in dispute and why we can't do anything about them - without right of reply, it's just turning into POV pushing by those who don't seem to want anything negative said about the subject. I've asked for this repeatedly but not had a reasonable response. There is lots out there on the subject of this article. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See the request for comment higher up on this page? That's formal dispute resolution. And after removal the material will remain in the page page history for retrieval, if and when adequate sourcing is obtained. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake on the formal resolution issue - I hadn't regarded the RfC as fully "formal". On the issue of material removal - Benjiboi just will not discuss appropriate sources and keeps removing citation and things based on them without full reasoning and in at least one case even incorrectly. (Such as claiming that [22] didn't mention the subject at all, which it does, or removing references to the fact her writings are controversial when the subject herself openly says they hold controversial views) I doubt there would be any useful participation in a discussion about reinsertion - so a consensus will be reached by those editors willing to discuss and it'll get reinserted when the page protection expires and Benjiboi will just come along again and remove them. I want a discussion and consensus but that's hard when there are editors that will not participate. If we can get a consensus prior to removal and while the page is still protected that shouldn't happen, I guess, because I don't know of any other way to stop it happening. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I've started a new thread with a list of concerns. Luckily it's a short section so it shouldn't be too much to cope with. ThE NUS (National Student Union) parts need to be looked at to determine if they are reliable and notable. I'm concerned they are neither as it seems a small vocal group could just as easily campaign to insert material there. A trusted editor experienced with NUS platforms may be able to help on that. The second part though is if it is even notable as we're only using the primary sourcing. -- Banjeboi 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm giving it a good once-over, then posting a request to edit the protected page. Any content elements that aren't BLP should be trimmed out, just to keep this strictly a BLP issue. Anything else can remain while the editors reach consensus. Haven't double checked the whole thing yet so please lend a hand; you know the material better than I. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And Zoe, please have faith in the process. Banjeboi and David Shankbone are both very experienced editors. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think one of the issues in this case, and in a lot of cases on Wikipedia, is the desire to grab links instead of find reliable sources. If Bindel's words are notable enough to cause controversy, they should be found in reliable sources. But those sources might not be on-line. There are many journals, particularly as they relate to LGBT issues, as well as books and academic works. For the people wanting to use poor sources, the information may be valid, but to use it yout it might you to take a trip...to a library. Scholarly journals write about current topics as much as livejournals and blogs do. -->David Shankbone 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)