Open main menu

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.


Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:



Contents

Arvin VohraEdit

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Category:Climate change deniersEdit

DELETION UPHELD
Clear consensus against overturning the category deletion, by something like a 2-1 margin of voices, with both brief arguments starting with WP:LABEL since it's clearly used as a pejorative and almost no one voluntarily claims the label, to more thoughtful ones including Guy Macon's list of shadings. Perhaps there might be more traction in calling it "skeptic", but perhaps not, as there were several people who were in favor of "denier" but directly objected to "skeptic". In any case, "denier" clearly does not hunt.--GRuban (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

(I don't know where this should go, but I went with this board because it relates to the BLP policy.) Category:Climate change deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean, its clearly true it is conscientious, but that (in and off itself) should not be grounds for deletion. The problem would be inclusion, and that maybe grounds for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Having waded through much of the prior discussion, the only valid difficulty in having such a category AFAI can see, is the name. This is one of those situations (like pro-life/pro-choice) where the commonname is unfortunately somewhat 'loaded'. I obviously agree with Slater above that inclusion criteria need to be clear and might be difficult to enforce, but that in itself is not a reason to NOT have the category.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When I started the BLP discussion I put a notification on all affected BLPs and pinged all participants in the CfD, and I explained what event had caused me to start it. The BLP participants were Peter Gulutzan MastCell Masem N-HH Prhartcom RevelationDirect JBL NorthBySouthBaranof TPX KarasuGamma M.boli Niteshift36 Milowent Anythingyouwant JRPG Jonathan A Jones alanyst Bonewah Zaereth Jess Bluerasberry Ssscienccce Marcocapelle agr Collect Softlavender Ryk72 AusLondonder Govindaharihari Sphilbrick Guy Macon Mangoe The Anome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pinging me. I suppose this is related tangentially to post-1932 American Politics, from which I am indefinitely topic-banned by User:NeilN (who has not been around to respond to my unbanning request at his user talk), but I do stick with what I said before about this category, FWIW. Cheers! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposed to "denier" category. Denier is often flung as an insult, it sounds like the person is being accused of having a psychological problem, i.e. in denial. That makes it a BLP issue. The other problem is that there is no clear definition, you can find people with opinions all over the map labeled "deniers." Bjørn Lomborg for example appears in somebody's list of Top 10 Climate Deniers. What he denies are the economic benefits and urgency of addressing climate change. In my own practice I've stopped using the term except for a few unambiguous cases, since "denier" too often means somebody who fails the speaker's purity test. Thanks for the ping, Peter Gulutzan, and thank you for being a fair-minded and generous-spirited person in Wikipedia discussion. M.boli (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoration but it would be very recommendable to add "activist" or something similar that stresses the definingness of the characteristic. So Category:Climate change denial activists or Category:Climate change scepticism activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Your suggested "activist" has caused me to re-think my opposition. The inclusion criterion–what people would have in common–would be opposition to addressing climate change. I still don't like the "denier" label, but you have have captured a crisper definition of what would make this a useful category. M.boli (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything with "denier" in it. It is a term invented by the opposition specifically to imply that it is like Holocaust denial. Using a loaded category that the proponents of a position use is nothing new; both "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" were chosen to imply that the opposition is against choice or against life -- and we use the more neutral and descriptive Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movements. Climate change denial is not only loaded, but it is a term used only by detractors. Nobody calls themselves or their group Anti-life, Anti-choice or Climate change denial. (Strange that we disambiguate Anti-life as a pejorative term, but Anti-choice redirects to Anti-abortion movement. Seems a bit POV to me.) Oddly enough, Holocaust denial is used by many some holocaust deniers, who see it as an accurate description based upon them (correctly, in their view) denying that Hitler killed millions of Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    I should point out that in some places Holocaust denial is a crime, and the fact that many holocaust deniers have in fact lost libel actions about being called a holocaust denier. The courts (in many cases) have said these people are holocaust deniers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoring - the term is used extensively by sources, hence not "POV". Of course whether or not it is included in a particular article can be POV. That does not make the term unencyclopedic or not useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not getting involved in this again. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw)  09:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Denier" is a pejorative term, not merely descriptive, and open to interpretation. Our article on Climate change denial defines it as "... part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." That is very broad and subjective. Who decides what doubt is unwarranted, for example? Are people who say it may already be too late then to be labeled climate change deniers based on the last prong of the definition? In addition we do not have a good way to cite sources for inclusion in a category, and BLP demands strong sourcing for controversial claims. And who is important enough to be included? Does the category cover every politician who has a Wikipedia article and is on record as expressing doubt about the reality of human-induced warming or has opposed measures to stop it? That might include most members of the U.S. Republican party and quite a few on the growing European right. That would make the category too broad to be useful. The decision to remove this category was correct and should stand.--agr (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle I recognise the sentiments of those who object to the word 'denier', despite it being a commonly used term - however it shouldn't be beyond us to find a) a more neutral descriptor b) to establish objective criteria for inclusion and c) as with all cats, inclusion criteria should include that this is a significant defining feature of the individual, which is covered in the text of the article in some depth. I endorse that this would be a useful cat and am somewhat surprised that it was deleted.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I never thought this category was a BLP concern worth much consideration. If someone is of the opinion that climate change does not exist, why would this category addition be considered anything but simply descriptive, if not positive? The primary reason we fret about this is not because of the use of the term denier, but because we think it labels such people as having significant deficits in knowledge and/or cognitive abilities. Surely we can come up with something like Category:Flat Earth proponents that would get consensus?--Milowenthasspoken 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is that you can spend all day searching and fail to find a single peeson who is labeled a climate change denier and is of the opinion that climate change does not exist. You will instead find the following (listed in order from most unreasonable and unscientific to most reasonable and scientific)
    [1] Conspiracy theorists who think all climate scientists are lying (but who, in general, accept that the climate changes from natural causes).
    [2] People who don't deny the existence of climate change but believe that the magnitude is smaller than the climate scientists say it is.
    [3] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change but believe that human activity is a smaller factor than the climate scientists say it is.
    [4] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change or how big a factor human activity is but believe that it is beneficial instead of being harmful.
    [5] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that we are on the brink of a naturally-caused ice age prevented only by human-caused warming.
    [6] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that geoengineering can reverse human-caused climate change.
    [7] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that humans can adapt to changing climate.
    [8] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that the computer simulations are flawed. Pretty much everyone agrees that previous computer simulations made predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong. People in category 8 believe that the same is true about current simulations. Climate scientists say that they have fixed the problems and the simulations are now accurate. But of course they said that the last time too.
    [9] People who don't deny [see list above] and accept the climate change simulations but reject the economic simulations -- again pointing out that no economic simulation has ever been able to successfully predict the future economy.
    [10] People who don't deny [see list above] but doubt that increasing the size and power of the government is the solution, arguing that those with the most money generally get the government to do what they want done.
    [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for North America and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on Asia, India, Africa, and South America
    [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for the US to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the world.
    [13] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for California to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the country or the rest of the world.
    [14] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for Los Angeles to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the state, country or world.
    All of the above views are regularly called "climate change denial" in the popular press. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    They also often switch from one of those positions to the next when too many people see that the first one is untenable. This is because they only care about doing nothing about climate change and not about the reason for doing nothing - it is only a pretend reason anyway. The underlying cause is market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Guy Macon, there are gradiations like this all over wikipedia regarding categories. Climate change is not unique. We are tying to create categories that help our readers, and no category is perfect. Indeed I just found out about and wrote Orlando Ferguson after chiming in here earlier with my reference to Category:Flat Earth proponents. Doctor Ferguson (who was not really a doctor) did NOT believe the earth was completely flat, instead, he thought there was some elevation change topping out at the north pole, and that the earth was SQUARE. But I still put him in Category:Flat Earth proponents and he definitely should be there. Here, if the consensus of mainstream news reporting is that someone is a climate change denier, some category seems appropriate, because it can help our readers. Nuance can be shown in article content. Indeed, it can be the case that someone falling in your category [14] (the "most reasonable" in your hierarchy) is just making an argument to support his general opposition to any intervention steps, although he actually believes like US President Trump that China invented global warming as a hoax. [1]. But if some comedian makes a random joke about global warming one day, that doesn't merit inclusion.--Milowenthasspoken 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      Orlando Ferguson died over a century ago. The category we are dealing with primarily involves living people and, under BLP, our standards are much higher. Indeed, dealing with people who expressed doubts 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago about humans causing global warming and then died presents yet another problem. The further back you go, the less certain the science was. Are they all deniers?--agr (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Newspapers definitely thought Orlando Ferguson was nuts, but they were always polite. That's also our goal.--Milowenthasspoken 16:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I just tried explaining to an editor who can't seem to grasp the issue....... Aside from the word "denier" being loaded with implications, it's not really accurate. For example, I have a userbox that says I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. According to him, I'm a "climate change denier". Skeptic means I am not convinced and have doubts. Not denial, doubts. And Anthropogenic means man-made, not all. Do I deny that there is climate change? No. Do I have doubts that it is primarily manmade? I do. But labels like "climate change denier", regardless of how many media sources recklessly use the term, is not necessarily accurate. As an encyclopedia, I think we should strive for accuracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whole problem with categories that include WP:LABEL language is that we cannot provide a source at the category page as required by BLP. Yes, on the main page of a categorized BLP that should be sourced, but we're still using labeled language, so factual inclusion may not be there, just the perception from a few members of the press or the person's peers. We should not have these types of categories where inclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of the person by other sources. --Masem (t) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was a significant contributor to both discussions above, which I suggest people read, and I haven't changed my mind. I don't like BLP categories which are controversial or can be considered as derogatory, and I especially don't like them when the criteria for inclusion seemed to be subjective, ill-defined and poorly implemented. For example the orginal list included a "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" and also included a minor UKIP politician where the sole reference in support of the categorisation was some retweets (not even tweets) an account in his name had made. As far as I can tell the whole category seemed to be little more than a list of individuals whom some editors didn't like. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "denier" label support other neutral categorization to be decided Wikipedia has challenges tagging people who support fringe ideas. This proposal is similar to many others I have seen. We look for third-party verification of these things, which is a bias of Wikipedia which has benefits and drawbacks. I like that Wikipedia maintains its quality control; I regret that we do not have good systems for helping researchers identify obvious information like "who has published a paper confirming a certain concept". The longer term solution to this problem that I see is modeling this kind of issue in Wikidata, probably through the meta:WikiCite project. There are maybe 500 people who have contributed significantly to that project and many more would do more if it were more developed. I think there is community consensus within that project that people want to be able to query Wikidata to generate lists of things like who affirms or rejects various positions in publication. Lists like this are likely to become part of Wikidata culture because that project has so much more power to quickly verify these claims than Wikipedia. I like that Wikidata makes it relatively easy for people to enrich data for such purposes; I regret that we currently lack training materials and that anyone wanting to do this will have to be patient and persistent as they ask questions to human for support in an environment without sufficient documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support restoration (until a more neutral term is found). Understanding that the term Denier may be used subjectively, Climate change denier is a useful descriptive category when applied correctly and it is a term that is used extensively by reputable third-party sources. Until such time that a more clearly objective neutral name for the category is chosen the category and its title Climate change denier should be restored. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (~ add I think I have a problem in that I dont see the label as 'pejorative' as others do here, i just considered it as a environmental position.)
  • Alternative suggestion. Since one mother category would be Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, why not call it Category:Climate change skeptics and denialists? That way, it would also contain scientists who rejected the concept before there was a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Since the opposition seems to be based on the perception that the category itself is "perjorative", surely there is some title that won't be seen that way? Perhaps Category:People who've decided humans had a good run.--Milowenthasspoken 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the title is obviously pejorative in nature, and intended to be so, and is not a self-ascribed attribute to those who would be in such a group, it violates several policies and guidelines. Sort of like having a category for "Self-Hating Gnarphists" or "Gnarphist Nazi-Fascists" or the like. Collect (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose Since this is a pejorative label, it's a problem (as I said last time) that it tends to be stuck on anyone who deviates from a certain political orthodoxy, even if they agree with the core thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It's not a clear binary like "did a certain even occur" is. I doubt the will of the community to police the category even if it is very narrowly construed. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. SemiHypercube 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Alternative suggestion: {{Category:Climate action skeptics}} The criterion would be opposition to addressing global warming, as described by the scientific consensus. It doesn't sound pejorative, it seems to cover most of the varieties without arguing who is in and who is out. This category would apply to people where that is a substantial part of what makes them notable. -- M.boli (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As I said 3 years ago, I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose My two cents: From a neuropsychological standpoint, categorization is a natural reaction. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, and in particular, occurs in the area here the amygdala connects to the hippocampus. This area acts like a filter of information based upon emotional saliency, before storing it as memories in the hippocampus. No information is cognized (comes into consciousness) until it passes through this area for filtering. The purpose of it is manifold, but primarily it serves as a form of file-compression (not too unlike compressing a computer file) for faster processing and easier storage. For example, when you drive through a forest, you could not possibly remember every single tree along the way. Only those things that grab your attention --that have some importance or significance (salience) to you-- are committed to memory. Everything else is erased and simply stored as generic categories, ie: spruce tress or birch trees, etc... The processes in your brain which determine what is salient and what is not are your emotions, thus what you commit to memory depends solely upon whether it invokes an emotional response or not, and therefore this area of the brain is also our emotional center.
The purpose of categorization is to allow us to focus on the details which are important to us while discarding all of the info that we feel is unimportant, so it doesn't bog us down in the moment. That's what makes it so useful but also what makes it so dangerous. The same processes that cause us to categorize plants and animals into different taxonomical groups is exactly the same thing we use to categorize people. Thus, the emotional center of the brain is also the area where racial or other forms of hatred, prejudices and stereotypes form (all forms of categorization). When you can reduce something as complex as people to a simple label or title, it causes others to ignore all of the information involved and treat the individual as having all the characteristics placed upon that label. This is what makes it an extremely effective propaganda tool, because it turns a discussion into an us against them thing, rather than a collaboration or healthy debate of ideas, by creating an "in-group" in which "we" are all complex and individuals, and an "out-group" where "they" are all the same and (predominantly) bad. That's the way it has been used since the dawn of history to incite hatred or violence against others, from Babylon to the Romans to the Nazis to todays modern-world of political hatred.
We need to be really --extremely-- careful when categorizing people. Categories can be a great and very useful thing, when used properly, but they can be a terrible tool for both the nefarious and those with nothing more than good intentions, alike. This is one of those categories that is made to be divisive and does more harm to the debate than good. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Oppose The CFD conversation on this topic was extensive and had a large group of editors with different viewpoints, including those that came as a result of tags from biography discussion pages. While I respectfully disagree with the outcome (I favored renaming to be more neutral) the process lead to a reasonable outcome and I don't see anything that has changed recently to suggest a differnet consensus. If anyone feels the CFD was closed improperly, the right path is at WP:DRV. Thank you for tagging me to provide input; much appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I think true climate change deniers should be identified as such, I don’t like the concept of pigeon-holing beliefs into binary categories. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoring. I missed the original debate. After reading it and giving it some thought, I'd have voted keep. It's an identifiable and notable stance, just like Holocaust denial, and with potential to kill even more people. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoring I know I am fighting a rising tide (see what I did there?), but let's get back to talking about sources: if Reuters (or another RS) describes someone as a Climate change denier (using those exact words), we can categorize them as that too (though WP:DEFINING still applies). If there is not a source that says that, putting a person in the category constitutes original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad Rfc the OP didn't give a good reason for starting it. My opinion is in the prior BLP discussion. If nobody objects I will ask tomorrow for a formal close, "by an administrator" since an administrator closed the last one and this is like an appeal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: I asked today for a close by an administrator. I added earlier a DoNotArchiveUntil 14 August. Information for closer: I have just noticed that the OP pointed to the wrong version of the BLP discussion, where it was closed, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoring Support bringing back the word "denier", generally speaking is a descriptive and commonly known and used term. Why we should crack our brains to reinvent a wheel again and using some conspiracy words not to affect on someone’s emotions or attitudes. I don't see the label as the others do here and I did not see any depreciation "pejorative" it just express the sbm positions and views - and this is normal to have both affirmations and negations. We can found other term more neutral but it would change in essence, nothing - the problem still exists. However, the worldwide scale of these impacts has not been satisfactorily assessed.--IuliusRRR (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Alternative suggestion. I think the distinction between "skeptic" and "denier" is relatively unimportant. Change to Category:Climate change skeptics. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Since we have Category:Holocaust deniers to categorize individuals who "actively promoted" Holocaust denial, it would be consistent to have Category:Climate change deniers to categorize individuals who actively promoted Climate change denial. The category Category:Climate change skeptics would make an acceptable compromise, as a second choice. — Newslinger talk 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:LABEL. Additionally, the meaning of the term can vary depending on who is using it.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoration see what Marcocapelle wrote about possibly including the word "skeptic" in addition to denier (e.g., Category:Climate change deniers and skeptics) or just having a "AKA"/redirects thing at the top of page that notes other terms for it. It may also be notable to this discussion that on wikipedia, the "pro-life" actually redirects to "[movement]", similarly for pro-choice "[movements]" 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My take: Well, they are deniers. We got a whole damn article on it: Climate change denial. But since these people are not as bad as Holocaust deniers (depending on how extreme your viewpoint is), I guess we gotta consider WP:LABEL in terms of a category for them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would absolutely reject anything with "skeptics" in the na,e as this is pseudoskepticism of the most blatant kind. There is a mountain of evidence to show that this is not honest skepticism, it is instead a deliberate agenda to undermine climate science for the specific benefit of, and often paid for by, the fossil fuel industry. I would support people-first language: "people identified as climate change deniers" for example. Guy (Help!) 17°:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Always found the deniers label attacking, perhaps ,'people who dispute climate change' is much more npov. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Guy Macon. This is a subject with too much neuance and "denier" is too often applied by various external sources to other people as a pejorative to shut down legitimate disagreements. Springee (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoration, but also a rename to something like skeptics. WP isn't in a position to make a value judgement about what the real-world scientific consensus is, nor the real-world RS biographical consensus about deniers of/skeptiks about/activists against the data on climate change. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - per WP:LABEL Atsme Talk 📧 16:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Per Guy Macon's rationale that "denier" is too ambiguous and could be attached to a variety of different sorts of people who don't want to support the scientific consensus on climate change for various reasons. As such, the category isn't particularly informative or useful. The WP:LABEL concerns don't point toward deletion of the cat though, as there are certainly plenty of WP:BLUESKY climate change deniers, for whom attaching that label would be strongly supported by multiple WP:RSes. Which is what WP:LABEL requires of us. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Guy Macon's explanation that "denier" is an inherently inaccurate label. Levivich 01:15, 11 August 2019 (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.

BC Trans waxing caseEdit

There's an ongoing case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that deals with a trans woman who filed a complaint after she was denied waxing services at several salons throughout BC. The case has received some mainstream press coverage, and a lot of sensational coverage right-leaning websites, but it is not a major story as far as I can tell. Two questions have come up on the talk page:

  1. How much (if any) coverage is appropriate for the BCHRT page? Are edits like this one appropriate?
  2. Should we include JY's full name in the entry? The Tribunal previously subjected her name to a publication ban. That has been lifted, but WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP1E might still apply here.

Any input is appreciated. Nblund talk 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, I don't think it needs to go into that much detail, simple that the waxing businesses refused service on cultural and religious oppositions against servicing trans individuals. A reader can figure out the rest. On the second, I would omit at this point, BLPPRIVACY and all that. Yes, the news outs her, but we don't have to unless she opts to become a public figure herself. (eg same logic we used at Star Wars Kid until he actually fully accepted his association with the name.) --Masem (t) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"(edit conflict)Question - do we have indication of WP:LASTING coverage of the incident in national or international press or is everything clustered right around the same time? In addition, was there any significant legal precedent set by the complaint? My initial reaction is no we don't include under WP:BLP1E but I would want more detail first. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm involved in editing this article and wanted to clarify some points. The first is that nobody, at this time, is proposing that the name be added to the article. The BCHRT held a hearing, but no decision has been reached. Once that decision is reached, I think it will be time to revisit the subject (including adding the name), as only then will we have an idea of what the legal precedent will be. Secondly, this individual is a fairly well-known activist (they recently spoke before the Canadian parliament) and they have made numerous public comments and statements about this case. They're also a contestant a national pageant. It's my personal opinion that they are not a "low-profile individual" as Wikipedia would understand that term, and therefore the name may be suitable for inclusion at the time a decision is reached and there is further coverage of that decision. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Was her name connected to this case when she testified? I can't really find a story on that. The story is big in corners of the internet where trans people are a source of perpetual outrage, but not really in the mainstream press. It's clear to me that some other users (not you, Cosmic Sans) have tried to use the page to spread some serious BLP violations about her, which is part of why I'm especially concerned here. The speculation about her genitals seems like we're going out of our way to dwell on humiliating and salacious details about JY that have nothing to do with the Tribunal. Nblund talk 16:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(Thank you, I couldn't put a finger on what was nagging me about the overly described objections in your OP post, but that's basically it - it feels degrading to trans individuals to go into that much detail.) --Masem (t) 16:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
We can present the facts neutrally and without being insulting to anyone. The legal question to be decided in this case is whether these salons acted in a discriminatory fashion by refusing to wax the biologically male genitalia of an individual who identifies as a woman. There's really no way to avoid discussing that. But when we do discuss it, we can do it without being gratuitous. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If the case is still ongoing, and no legal precedent has been set then I'd say WP:TOOSOON likely applies to including information; let's wait until her case achieves some WP:LASTING coverage. As for the subject's name, without WP:RS mention of her, it's hard to assess whether she's somebody Wikipedia would consider a public person. Furthermore, if this article is likely to be a target for transphobic WP:WEASEL entries, that would not incline me further toward a lenient interpretation of WP:LASTING, WP:BLPPRIVACY and frankly, with regard to the Human Rights Tribunal page in particular, WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we agree that it's too soon. The immediate issue that NBlund has raised by posting here, though, is whether we should add any information that discusses these core allegations (e.g. the genitals issue) without stating a name. I don't think that raises any BLP concerns that this noticeboard could deal with, though, because it doesn't actually identify the complainant. In other words, NBlund's point one is a typical content dispute and not a BLP issue. NBlund's second point, though, refers to the use of the name - which is not actually happening on the page at the time. The impression I get, and nblund can correct me if I'm wrong, is that they believe the name should never be used. My position is that I'm reserving judgment until the decision comes down. In short, I don't see anything for this noticeboard to do at this time. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
BLP applies if there is any potential for a specific individual to be identified, which is clearly what's at stake here. We're not talking a proverbial "Jane Doe" here , or a broad class of people. --Masem (t) 17:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If this becomes a landmark case that warrants extensive coverage, it might be reasonable to mention her name as part of that coverage for convenience sake. But I think that's unlikely. BLP relates to content about BLPs. Nblund talk 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No one is suggesting including the individual's name or new information sufficient to identify them. The individual became mainstream news within hours of the lifting of the publication ban so even the first sentence of the listing allows people to Google search and find her name. Stick to the issue you raised in the noticeboard and stop moving the damn goalposts. This was never a BLP issue. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • All in or all out. Note that the salon owners and workers are BLPs too. We can't only describe one side without the other. I would suggest leaving the waxing case out all together as NOTNEWS until there is a verdict either way - but if we are covering interim proceedings - the defense, which involves genetilla concerns is relevant to a bikini wax.Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • We can easily describe the workers' side by stating "cultural and religious objections to serving trans clients", and not at all bring up genitalia (as, it should be obvious to a reader that a bikini wax is going to get to those areas). Respects their claims but also respects the trans indivdiual here. That said, of course, TOOSOON/NOT#NEWS is a fully acceptable argument to not include at this time. --Masem (t) 17:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Except, do they have "cultural and religious objections to serving trans clients"? I assume the salon does more than just full Brazilian waxes. What if the trans client just wanted legs waxed and not bikini area? I doubt they'd have the same objections then. "Cultural and religious objections to serving trans clients" indicates they wouldn't serve her at all, whereas the impression I got was that they wouldn't provide this particular service to her. I think that's an important distinction. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Then just say "....cultural and religious objections to providing Brazilian waxes to trans persons." Again, a reader either knows or can quickly read from our article that a Brazilian wax includes areas around those parts, and thus should be very clear why it would raise these issues. There's more ways to phrase the objections raised by the waxers that give their side fairly without insulting the BLP at hand here. --Masem (t) 18:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
          • The sources don't say the respondents refused service based on gender identity. Putting that in the article IS a violation of BLP. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Since this story is currently being covered mostly in the right leaning press, we're going to be hard pressed to offer a neutral take on it ourselves. I haven't seen any factual reporting on JY's genitals, and I really doubt we ever will, but as the National Post states, the core question is really: "should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity?". That doesn't necessarily hinge on her anatomy. Nblund talk 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • All in. The details nblund so desperately wants to remove from the article is what has made the waxing cases notable to begin with, period full stop. The waxing cases are about the allegation that salons refused service based on gender identity where the salons argue they refused service based on the presence of presumed physical testicles. The sources have not indicated the salons refused service due to gender identity- the complainant did. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There's still more gentler ways to talk about the objections to handling male parts than what the phrasing had but respecting concerns of both sides. Maybe "....cultural and religious objections of handling trans women's private areas in their Brazilian waxing services." (again, should be clear without descending into more explicit terms). --Masem (t) 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources do not indicate the issue is about handling trans women's private areas. The sources indicate the issue is about handling gentically male genitals. There's no reason to be gentle here. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Generally, when one says "trans woman" we're usually talking pre-transition, so it will be fairly obvious to the reader what the situation is. The language that was being added was far too graphical, and entirely unneeeded to get the point across. --Masem (t) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
And, notwithstanding the question of whether discussion of a trans woman even should be anything to do with the state of her surgery, I'll reiterate that digging into the trousers of a WP:BLP is absolutely beyond the pale. Simply put, WP:PRIVACY should forbid intrusion into such a specific detail. Particularly in a way that allows Wikipedia to present a veneer of transphobia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between reporting the case, including the allegations of the case, and "digging into the trousers." I don't think anyone wants to do the latter. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • DeltaQuad has threatened to use OS on the talk page. Wikipedia does not follow Canadian court orders and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. If there is consensus to include the name but DQ uses Oversight to remove it, please report her to WP:ARBCOM. wumbolo ^^^ 18:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it's easy to see how raising the question of the state of an individual woman's gender confirmation surgery is a WP:BLP violation. If we must go "all in or all out" I'd say all out. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Come back after the tribunal issues judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the IP 75.162.75.252 is the same editor that was blocked previously for multiple BLP violations (which were oversighted) on this article (75.162.216.6 contribs). If Wumbolo wants to back that editor up, that's their choice. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Wumbolo, of all people, would want to be carefully adhering to WP:BLP in all circumstances right now. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wumbolo, given your past actions in recent days you are treading perilously close to an indefinite block for trying to intimidate an oversighter. Swarm has already warned you about your recent threats on your talk page, so I will make it even more clear: if an oversighter suppresses something and you or anyone restores it while it is still suppressed will be {{OversightBlock}}’d. Suppression is a tool of first resort, and suppress first and discuss on list after. If there is a possibility of it being libelous or personally identifiable information, we will always suppress first and undo as needed, and your attempt to intimidate DeltaQuad here is unacceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to involve myself in whatever dispute is going on here, but is a reminder that complaint about OS can be taken to Arbcom really tantamount to intimidation? I see it as something along the same vein as saying that edit warring can be reported to the edit warring noticeboard or something like that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Trust me, you really don't want to involve yourself in that dispute. If there is an OS block I'd strongly recommend you discuss that civilly and not immediately run to Arbcom, regardless of what Wumbolo might propose. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom can review oversight actions, yes, but saying “if you suppress, I urge anyone to take you to ArbCom” certainly is an attempt to prevent the use of suppression where it may be warranted. Suppression is a use first-discuss later tool, and an oversighter will almost always seek immediate review if they feel it may be controversial. Calling on suppression to be dependent on community consensus and threatening an ArbCom case over it is not what the intent of ArbCom review of OS actions is for, and certainly has a chilling effect. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom and CUOS serve the wiki-community not Canada, is all I wanted to convey. wumbolo ^^^ 19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
For context: DQ said they would oversight JY's name while the gag order was still in effect, and did so after it became abundantly clear that multiple single-purpose accounts were trying to publicize her name alongside a host of other completely egregious BLP violations. Cosmic Sans has raised a good faith content issue, but other editors were just trying to export some Reddit garbage to Wikipedia and there was absolutely no ambiguity about their motivations or the need for oversight. Nblund talk 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven’t looked at the original case, but my point was that we have someone basically telling an Oversighter they’re going to make their life difficult if they take a discretionary action that they would almost assuredly seek review on reeks of trying to create a chilling effect, and we should not tolerate that, especially on things that potentially impact real people. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I absolutely agree, I just wanted to emphasize that DQs threat of oversight was not a response to material that could ever be construed as a legitimate talk page discussion. Nblund talk 19:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on discussion here, including the well-received point by @Icewhiz: that the defendants in this tribunal should also have BLP protection, and in light of the use of transphobic dog whistles such as genetically male genetalia in this thread I've WP:BOLDly blanked the section on the article page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Simon, I won't revert your blanking at this time but I don't think that it's founded in policy. WP:BLP refers to "full names." I don't see any policy stating that we can't even talk about the case in general terms simply because one of the unnamed parties might have BLP protection if they were to be named. Can you give me a direct quote that supports this interpretation of WP:BLP? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC) By the way, I don't see any consensus on here or on the talk page that the section should not exist at all. It does appear that the consensus is that it should exist in some form. So I may end up reverting that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that would be a poor idea. Much better to err on the side of caution and leave it blanked until a consensus develops. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I ended up reverting it before I saw your reply. Nevertheless, from what I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), only Simon has expressed the opinion that the section should not exist at all. And I'm still unclear as to what policy, exactly, is being used to support this blanking. WP:BLP discusses full names. No full names are used. So where is the beef, so to speak? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a trivial matter to access the name of the individual who submitted the tribunal complaint via the refs included in inline citations. This, taken together with rampant speculation about her genetalia in the article make for an absolutely egregious violation of WP:PRIVACY the technicality that you need to click one link to see her name doesn't excuse us of our duty to protect the privacy especially of private citizens who don't constitute Wikipedia's definition of a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And based on my review of same sources, I'd suggest that the individual being discussed here is categorically not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. She's a private individual, who should enjoy enough privacy to not have the state of her genitalia being speculated upon within an encyclopedia! Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Simon, I think we all agree that WP:BLP covers full names and birth dates, at least at a minimum. Your argument that someone could, with enough investigation, eventually discern an identity and that confers BLP protection so we just shouldn't discuss it at all does not appear founded in policy. Can you give me an exact quote from the policy on which you rely? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy could be WP:BLPCRIME (as this is quite close) - we have a case involving the livelihood of several BLPs and the private parts of another BLP before a tribunal. We should be careful in our treatment of the case until it is resolved.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really apply as nobody is accused of a crime here. But nevertheless, WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say that the case cannot even be discussed. I see no policy-based reason to blank this section. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x3 So two things. First, what I'm arguing is, based on my interpretation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:PRIVACY we should err on the side of protecting the identity of private citizens. However you're selectively disregarding my deletion criteria which included not only WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:PRIVACY but also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Simply put, the notability of an event depends on that event having some lasting significance. A tribunal hearing a complaint does not confer lasting significance though a tribunal deciding upon a complaint might. When we balance the needs for WP:PRIVACY of private citizens with the demands that Wikipedia not be a news outlet but rather comment only on events with WP:LASTING significance, it's far better to err on the side of caution. As I mentioned at article talk, I think that a case might be made for re-inclusion after the tribunal reaches a decision. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 But also, yes, I support @Icewhiz:'s (admittedly broad) interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I know that's your interpretation, Simon, but I don't believe it to be a correct interpretation. Can you give me a specific quotation from Wikipedia policy that supports the contention that we cannot even discuss a pending case even if names aren't named? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This is WP:GREENCHEESE please describe why you find my interpretation of the interplay between multiple policies unconvincing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Simon, the reason you can't quote policy is because none exists to support your position. But if you'd like me to describe why I find it unconvincing, it's because BLP and BLPPRIVACY both talk about personal information in terms of full names, addresses, and the like. It does not support, in any way, the concept that even discussing a court case without naming names somehow implicates these policies. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
How about we see how other regulars on this noticeboard feel about that. There's plenty of them who have been active in this discussion. And so far none of them have supported your position over mine. But rather than assuming, how about we wait and see what consensus is. If the consensus at the blp noticeboard is that my BLP and notability interplay concerns don't warrant the action I took I'll self-revert. If the consensus on this noticeboard is that I am correct in my interpretation, I'd ask you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
In this case we are discussing allegations of human rights violations by private individuals (and not large corporations). This is skirting around the edges of criminal law given that the defendants are private, relatively unknown, individuals - and we should not imply these home salon workers were on the wrong side of the humans rights code prior to a verdict.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
A neutral presentation of the facts does not imply that the workers broke the law, just as a neutral presentation of fact under BLPCRIME is permissible. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
And that still doesn't address WP:TOOSOON or WP:NOTNEWS in the slightest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
That's different, Simon. A true BLP concern, founded in policy, can be grounds for an immediate blanking of the section and subsequent discussion at the BLP noticeboard. If your argument is simply TOOSOON/NOTNEWS, that should be taken up on the talk page and handled like any other content dispute. BLP concerns are considered more serious, and we can't conflate BLP reasons to delete something with TOOSOON/NOTNEWS reasons to delete something. As it stands, the best argument so far is that WP:BLPCRIME somehow applies even though there's no actual crime alleged, and even then it doesn't require blanking of this section because BLPCRIME does not prohibit discussing the crime in general terms without naming names. There really is no BLP-based policy reason to blank this section. If you are willing to rescind that argument and instead talk about TOOSOON/NOTNEWS, let's do that on Talk. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP in a nutshell, just says that BLP material "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." The core policy concern is neutrality and weight, and I think there's a plausible case to be made that there's no way to cover this neutrally at the moment. Where we have the discussion is a different question. Nblund talk 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You call it "transphobic dog whistles" but others call it biology, see Male reproductive system. wumbolo ^^^ 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Based on this discussion, I have closed the thread at WP:AN3 that Wumbolo raised against Nblund. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    FWIW Nblund violated 3RR but made a convincing case that they were removing BLP-violating content. I urge anyone reading not take any action against Nblund without additional evidence of wrongdoing. wumbolo ^^^ 19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Gee thanks. I'll return the favor and assume this comment isn't as petty as it looks. Nblund talk 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wumbolo: Did you just revert back information with WP:BLP issues? Really? So when it's your own Arbcom enforcement case it's the most important thing but when its an actual article with BLP implications those don't matter? Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the name is the only issue at the article. Notice that I did not restore the controversial bit. wumbolo ^^^ 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The idea that discussing a court case in general terms without naming names somehow violates BLP is not founded in policy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It pretty much is, quoting This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The section "mentions" this individual not by name but in a manner that it is rather easy to figure out who they are from online searches and other news reports. If a controversial claim is made to some person that can be readily identified - just not necessary on WP - BLP kicks in. It would be wholly inappropriate to say, in Wikivoice, "One of The Squad has been taken bribes for their vote." because we can narrow who that might be to one of four specific people, whereas "Some in the history of US Congress has taken bribes for their vote" is fine because the class of past Congresspeople is far too large to personally identify any specific one. (Though obviously, sourcing is required). --Masem (t) 20:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Masem, your quote from BLP only addresses who the policy applies to - it does not say that we cannot discuss a case even in the most general terms without the use of names. In fact, BLP discusses "full names" and "addresses" as examples of material we should be concerned about. If it truly supported your interpretation, why would it limit itself only to those two categories? The opinion that BLP forbids us from discussing a case even without names is not found anywhere in policy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
At issue is that there is clearly a identifyable individual at the center of this case. Those are her complaints that drove the case. She is not an anonymous Jane Doe, but a person with a name we're just not including yet. BLP 100% applies to anything dealing with this case. Mind you, outside of repeating her name, the only issue I see at play is the excessive description of what the waxers' complaints were, everything else is necessarily part of covering the case in full (presuming we continue to include it). That's the caution that BLP emphasizes. --Masem (t) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this section is particularly suspect because it seems like we're cramming it in so just so that we can talk about JY. If I go over to the page for Cleveland, Ohio and create a subsection where I talk at length about how Don King killed someone there in the 1960s, it would probably raise BLP concerns — even though it is true and even though it is probably acceptable on Don King's own entry — because it would be off topic and WP:UNDUE in a way that seemed to serve no purpose beyond publicizing a story that made him look bad. Nblund talk 20:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Excluding "genitalia" or other detailed descriptions in favor of "Brazilian wax" wikilinked to "bikini wax" is only appropriate if the RSs have describe the objections in those terms. Otherwise Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. How does the reader know exactly what the extent of a Brazilian wax is without having to look it up? How does the reader know the reason why a Brazilian wax has been described as objectionable without them connecting a lot of dots and making assumptions? Why obfuscate the actual objections? If the objection is stated as being to dealing with the individual's genitals, that's what the article should say. How is this related to BLP? People (usually) have genitalia, we aren't revealing any personal secrets. I think it would be a potential BLP violation of one side of the dispute to whitewash the issue. Also I think it is far from obvious to the reader that "trans woman" implies pre-transition? What do you call such a person post-transition if not "trans woman" as well, the other category being "cis woman", correct? The reader is supposed to know all this? I support the All in or all out position by Icewhiz. Either include both sides accurately or just leave it out because of TOOSOON, NOTNEWS and BLP considerations. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The National Post story describes it as a wax that involves "the removal of pubic hair around the groin". The various IP editors seem particularly preoccupied with specifying "male genitalia", "scrotum", or "penis and testicles", but there is no reliable reporting on her genitals, and including a debate about them on the BCHRT page seems pretty egregious - leaving it out entirely seems fairly reasonable to me. Nblund talk 22:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I should have investigated it more rather than just replying to what I saw here. We absolutely should not state anything that is not in secondary WP:RS coverage. I take it the Toronto Sun, National Review and Washington Examiner are not reliable sources (they do mention male genitalia). —DIYeditor (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean, it's hard to imagine how they could have fact checked that particular claim, right? JY appears to have disputed it, and I don't really think anyone is going to learn anything about the BCHRT by reading a fact-free debate about whether or not someone has a penis and testicles. Nblund talk 23:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The efforts to hide the genitalia of the subject, and to blank it out, under the argument that "no reliable sources" cover it, came up to naught: "Yaniv, who identifies as female but has male genitalia",[1] said the tax-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada's federal broadcaster. XavierItzm (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec) My issues was mostly with how the original statement describing the complaints of the waxers that seemed to me to glorify on the focus on genitalia, to the detriment of the trans woman at the center of the case, as if it were an insult toward them in Wikivoice (eg to me, reading "She's still has male parts, lets make a point to point this out"). We don't have to whitewash the word out, but we should be using it in a more respectful manner that covers why the workers have issues with performing the wax without glorifying the focus on it being about genitalia. I mean, here's a line from the Toronto Sun that I think is much more respective of the trans woman but still hits the point that the waxers had issue with, compared to what had been in our article "she was not comfortable carrying out a Brazilian wax on a person with male genitalia, nor did she have the training for it." ([2] - ignore the clickbait headline). I still fully agree with all in or all out, but I'm just saying "all in" does not require the type of language that was present to start. --Masem (t) 22:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If the Toronto Sun is a reliable source shouldn't we include the specific objection? If the conclusions are obvious to the reader from "trans woman" and "Brazilian wax" then we are making the same BLP violation against the trans lady, and if it is not clear aren't we obfuscating the issue at hand? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Assuming we're going "all in" 1) TSun is reliable, and 2) I have no problem with that being the description of the issue from the waxers side. I'm keeping in mind, in researching this, the person at the center of this case is getting very little media respect (eg NatRev and there's an article I won't link from Reason that has the name of the person in the link that are definitely loaded against this person); that Toronto Sun article is the first that gives a fair coverage of both sides without commentary. But because of the amount of poor reporting on this, I'm leaning more to keep this case out until there's clearly more reporting that is less critical of the issue and just reporting the facts. --Masem (t) 22:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Like OP, I see several questions: whether to include anything (I see the section has been removed), whether to give or link to RS which give the person's name, and apparently whether to get into the weeds of what a Brazilian entails. IMO the summary content we had on this (stably for the last few months, until the last 10-15 days) was OK—and dealt with complaints filed with this article's subject, which is the BCHR Tribunal, not the individual—though I certainly don't think it's so vital to understanding the article's subject (the Tribunal) that it has to be included, if others would prefer it be "all out". I don't think we need to add what a Brazilian wax is; an editor added "scrotum" on the 10th but I removed it because RS didn't get into such detail. Regarding the name, comparing the old version to the most recent version before blanking, it seems some user(s) wanted to add two sentences about the name initially being concealed and then revealed (sentences which, notably, don't actually bother to include the name, but linked to a source which did), which does seems excessive; iff we decide to include the name, or a ref which includes the name, I would simply add it to the first sentence...but, like Masem, I don't see that she's the sort of "public figure" who could be named, under BLP/BLPPRIVACY... -sche (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Too soon. If this blows up into a big thing covered in multiple MSMs, and shows some kind of lasting impact, then I'd look into revisiting it, but at the moment this appears to be another headline of the week, and by next week will be all but forgatten. I say just wait and see how it plays out. But, most definitely, we should not be naming names. This person is not, by any stretch of the definition, a public figure. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I would dispute the reliability of the Toronto Sun - they're a tabloid, and one of the worst tabloids in Canada. They regularly blend editorial and news, and have weak to absent fact checking. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In the UK the story has now been mentioned by The Guardian but so far only as opinion [3]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned at article talk, per WP:EVENTCRIT the existence of coverage of the event does not confer notability since it could be seen as WP:ROUTINE - a human rights tribunal hears a human rights case. We should wait to find out if this tribunal case has a WP:LASTING impact before risking the WP:BLP minefield it's going to represent. Basically: until the tribunal makes a decision, this whole thing is an irrelevancy and BLP concerns should remain paramount. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You know, when you've been told an event doesn't meet notability guidelines and violates BLP as part of a larger article, creating an independent article is a violation of WP:POVFORK and a pretty severe one. Deletion discussion here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in any of the discussions or edit until now. This is a major case in Canada that has been covered by mainstream press. We don't have to name the complainant, but it should be noted that the BC Human Rights Commission made the hearings public because JY was so public herself. She has conducted many interviews. The reporting is not limited to describing the case, but how the Human Rights Commission operates. I'll add that JY is already part of Wikipedia in the Meghan Murphy and the Lindsay Shepherd articles describing twitter bans instigated by conflict with JY. Since reliable sources are germane, here are several from mainstream sources. I'm not including tabloid papers or any right wing media blogs etc:

This controversy is significant in that the Human Rights Commission has to balance differing rights and it raises very important questions. It doesn't need to include the more salacious aspects of JY's alleged communication with minors, or even her admitted dislike for some ethnic minorities. But there's no lack of verifiable sources that meet wikipedia's RS requirements.

Finally, regarding mention of her male genitalia, JY has acknowledged she's pre-op in public interviews and it goes to the core of the Human Rights issues. To wit, should women who only wax female genitalia be forced to handle male sex organs? That's fundamental to explaining this and the balancing of rights.Mattnad (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

theophile obengaEdit

Too much basic and critical information in missing from the English article; such the 1974 Cairo Symposium, his colaboration with Cheikh Anta Diop, his training of scholars in Europe, America, and Africa, etc. At least translate the French article into English !!!

Too much bias in the talk section , question credentials, professor status, etc. This makes the article REEK of racism, implicit and explicit bias.

Jo SwinsonEdit

This page is being spammed with 'she is a Tory' stuff and needs to be controlled.

Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feministsEdit

I need to bring something to the attention of the more general Wikipedia community. At different Wikipedia pages, including some BLPs, people are being labeled TERFs or categorized as trans-exclusionary radical feminists. For the folks who are unaware, "TERF" is short for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." Usually, people who are called "TERF" object to the term and consider it a slur. When this is pointed out, there is usually push-back from a transgender editor or an editor who agrees with labeling these people as TERFs. Some examples of where this happening are the articles at the top of this section. You can see the "TERF" disputes on the talk pages of "Meghan Murphy," "Julie Bindel," and "Mermaids (charity)." One example: Talk:Meghan Murphy#First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist. When WP:WIKIVOICE or WP:LABEL are brought up, they are dismissed, including the use of "transphobic" at the TERF page.[8] The drama has extended to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Now, looking right at WP:LABEL, if it's not appropriate to label a group "a cult" or "a sect," or person as a "racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, mysogynistic, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, [or] neo-Nazi" in Wikipedia's voice, how is it appropriate to label people "TERFs" in Wikipedia's voice or to categorize them as such? At the TERF page, even though editors have tried to get "transphobic" removed from the lead and "transphobic hatred" removed from the "Coinage and usage" section of the page, or have suggested recasting it as a compromise, it remains. This means that calling a person a TERF is basically equivalent to calling the person transphobic. However, the TERF page lets folks know that "TERF" is used more broadly these days, beyond its original use. Folks have different opinions on what is transphobic or what falls under the "TERF" category. When editors say that calling people TERFs or transphobic in Wikipedia's voice are WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:LABEL violations, transgender editors or other editors who agree with labeling these people as TERFs or transphobic say that the sourcing for the "TERF" or "transphobic" wording is strong. However, I ask you all to look at the "Opposition to the word" section and compare it to the "Responses to opposition" section. The former section has the stronger sourcing. When this is pointed out, transgender editors or other editors say the the opposing side has less weight and they prioritize American sources over British sources because they say that TERF ideology is stronger in Britain. At the Meghan Murphy talk page, I said that editors can't even agree to categorize people as "climate change deniers." I want to ask all of the editors who commented on the "climate change denier" dispute higher up to please take a look at this and offer their opinions. Am I allowed to ask these editors here in the same forum with pings? Peter Gulutzan, Anythingyouwant, M.boli, Marcocapelle, Guy Macon, Slatersteven, Volunteer Marek, agr, Pincrete, Milowent, Niteshift36, Masem, Jonathan A Jones, Bluerasberry, Bodney, Hob Gadling, Collect, Mangoe, SemiHypercube, JBL, Zaereth, RevelationDirect, O3000, Hanyangprofessor2, UnitedStatesian, IuliusRRR, Newslinger, and Adoring nanny. Leaving a note about this at WP:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch too. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will say this: if a neutral, reliable source refers to any person using any term, I believe WP can repeat that term in the article covering that person, and can categorize the person in an appropriate category(ies) that use(s) that term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

*Comment I have no idea where Halo Jerk1's ping list came from, but I would like to point out that the term "TERF" seems no more inflammatory than such political labels as "white supremacist" or "alt-right", and WP practice in such cases has been to follow the terms reliable sources use in our BLPs (as opposed to sexual orientation or religion where a higher threshold is required for both labels and categories). Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

As a pinged editor who just learned of the term TERF five minutes ago, I want to state my agreement with Newimpartial. New terms will always be created, and as an encyclopedia we are going to reflect what reliable sources use. And I may add that there can be a downside to excluding terms used in reliable sources; the NXIVM cult guys fought on that page for years to remove the word "cult", God forbid someone got involved with them because our article was inaccurate.--Milowenthasspoken 16:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The ping list came from #RfC: Category:Climate change deniers. That is what is meant by "At the Meghan Murphy talk page, I said that editors can't even agree to categorize people as 'climate change deniers.' I want to ask all of the editors who commented on the 'climate change denier' dispute higher up to please take a look at this and offer their opinions." The argument you are making about use of "TERF" is similar to the argument people made (and continue to make) about use of "climate change deniers." And as with some people who are climate change deniers preferring to be called "climate change skeptics," some people who are called TERFs prefer to be called "gender critical." Why you, one of the main folks championing use of "TERF," think it should be exempt from WP:LABEL and other rules is puzzling. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion one way or another about the issue being raised here. Let me say that pinging 28 editors is excessive. We all have our favorite issues which we think are The Most Important Thing In the World and which we are convinced that Simply Everyone Must Pay Attention To, but the fact remains that those of us who are interested in BLP issues already have the BLPNB on our watch list. Halo Jerk1, please don't ever do this again. Think of the annoyance if everyone with a cause pinged 30 editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Guy Macon. I was following what I saw at #RfC: Category:Climate change deniers and in other places on Wikipedia where a lot of editors are pinged because it involves a dispute or a renewed form of the dispute they were involved in. Some people participate on the BLP noticeboard, but they don't have it watchlisted. I wanted the opinions of the editors who voted on the "climate change deniers" dispute because I see this as similar and I just can't see why the TERF category should be allowed if the "climate change deniers" category isn't allowed. However, I will keep what you said in my thoughts. I don't wanna annoy people. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Not good enough. You need to agree to stop. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting says "Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of 'spam' and is disruptive to that user's experience". Expressing an opinion on whether we should call someone a "climate change denier" does not make a person involved in the completely separate issue of whether to call someone a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" or any number of other terms. You appear to think your behavior is acceptable. IT ISN'T.
It is OK to ping multiple users (or inform them on their talk pages) if they have been directly involved in the specific issue you are discussing (but only in ways specifically allowed in Wikipedia:Canvassing). That isn't what you have done here. You have pinged a bunch of editors who have never been invoked in the topic you are discussing. Do it again and we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Guy Macon, we get it. This is not the kind of thing that will lead to a block after discussion on ANI. They already said they will heed your words. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I would point out that unlike LABEL (which I am not at all convinced applies to the term in question), BLP is an actual policy and it distinguishes between sexuality and religious labels - to which a higher standard applies - and other kinds of categories such as political ones to which ordinary WP:V applies. However, I see that Halo Jerk1 is trying to change BLP too, as part of what looks from here like the largest and fastest exercise in forum shipping that I have ever seen. And unlike the use of reliably sourced political labels for BLP subjects. forum shipping actually is "against the rules". Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
What you just said is poppycock. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
And notifying relevant pages is not WP:Forum shopping. WP:LABEL is a guideline. And WP:YESPOV is a policy. These rules are already in place. I ain't trying to change any rule. You just don't want to follow the rules. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have already commented on the matter before at the talk pages. So has NewImpartial. I agree with HaloJerk that the 'opposition to the word' section has the stronger sourcing. WP:LABEL seems pretty clear to me. "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." TERF in present usage is indeed derogatory, thus equivalent to transphobe, one of the words specifically mentioned by WP:LABEL, and so it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Except that "Transphobic" as a term is repeatedly and routinely used in WP's voice. LABEL is a cautionary note only; as long as a label is relevant and "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", it should be used in WP's voice as well. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget where WP:LABEL says, "in which case use in-text attribution." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
If that were your concern, the appropriate course would have been a {cn} tag and not a forum shop. I for one made sure I had multiple RS at hand before restoring the terms in question. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It was a concern, one that was repeatedly shut down. I now understand that you just don't like to follow our policies and guidelines when they conflict with your POV. That's why you are saying that appropriate notification is forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is against "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." Notifications for a central discussion, per WP:TALKCENT, is not "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." That's why WP:FORUMSHOPPING says, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." My notifications were extremely brief and neutral. Your attempts to throw shade are just as poor as your understanding of the guidelines and policies. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You state "Except that "Transphobic" as a term is repeatedly and routinely used in WP's voice." That is just proving that this problem is even more widespread; it is also a violation of WP:LABEL. WP:LABEL is not "a cautionary note"; it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." You also left off some of your quote; labels must be "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." -Crossroads- (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
They certainly are, and I made sure I had them at hand before restoring the terms in question. Also, the best practice is still to include those citations in the body and summarise in the lede, and not to edit war the lede because someone DOESNTLIKE a term that is consistently used by RS for a key aspect of the subject's Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
In-text attribution does not mean 'citing sources.' "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence." per WP:INTEXT. That means we (Wikipedia) cannot call someone a TERF or transphobe in our voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You are still citing a style guide not a policy, so "cannot" is simply inaccurate. Also, discussions to this point have not concluded that "TERF" is a controversial term to which LABEL" appllies. However, it is necessary to resort to "referred to by Global news as a Trans-exclusionary radical feminist", then so be it. The point is not to whitewash the article. Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll point out the second para of BLPCAT: Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. While the point that this classification is not related to sexuality or religion, I would say that the fact it is called a "radical" view is a "poor reputation", and thus this should apply: the person's notability must be associated with being part of this group, not if they happen to believe it but are notable for something else. (This would also apply to white nationalist or alt-right too). ( I would generally side with Crossroad's point - label terms should never be used to catagorized BLP unless that is the underpinning of their notability aka David Duke for white supremacy) --Masem (t) 03:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The case in question at Megan Murphy happens to be the paradigmatic one where the notability of the BLP subject has become almost entirely taken up with her trans-exclusionary and radical feminist views. Nobody disagrees about this reality; the only question is in what terms to present it. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked at her article, as it is the first listed in this section, and it's so obviously appropriate I can't even be bothered to look further. The TERF label is well supported by the sources, and she is quite literally advocating for the concerns of transwomen to be excluded from the feminism. Incidentally, continuing on a thought below, most notable white supremacists insist they are not even a little bit racist and that saying otherwise is hateful. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, yes, the article would clearly put her in this camp, but at the same time, we have the subject disputing this label. We do not have enough history (at most, 7 years) to be able to readily establish if this is how she will be seen in more scholarly sources, in contrast to someone like David Duke who's activities have been well reviewed. Mind you, the lede has it right as to take the label use out of Wikivoice, but this becomes the issue with categories, because that category is implicitly stating she belongs in the TERF in wikivoice, which is absolutely wrong to be doing. That's the whole problem with any category that is based on a label, because we cannot distinguish "factually in this classification due to years of scholarly analysis" and "assigned to this classification because current RSes say so." We have to be rather careful when using these types of categories to make sure that the people is going to be known in the long term for being that label. I just don't think that's there for someone like Murphy in this case. --Masem (t) 05:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Like anything, we should follow the lead of reliable sources. It is not, for example, at all controversial to call David Duke a white supremacist, as he is frequently referred to as exactly that in high-quality sources. So, similarly, if an individual is frequently referred to as "TERF" in reliable sources, we should follow their lead. We should never, however, have editors on their own decide that someone merits that label, as that would constitute impermissible synthesis. So, I would say it's acceptable to use the term, but if and only if reliable sources lead us to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • As an editor who has been personally attacked and accused of being a "TERF" because I enforce WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR in the article, I suggest that Administrators take a close look at the many attempts to inject biased edits into this BLP. The latest which began with this edit on 15:12, 1 August 2019. The blog and podcast by Meghan Murphy does not deal exclusively with transgender politics and attempts to describe it as such is activism by editors who have a negative, biased opinion about her. Information about her views on transgender activism and transgender legislation appears in the body of the article under sections "Views" and "Opposition to Bill C-16". Attempts to pigeonhole Murphy as a "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" neglects her history of critical opinions about third-wave feminism, liberal feminism, ageism, male feminists, the sex industry, exploitation of women in mass media, censoring, trigger-warnings, anti-bullying campaigns, and cult-like movements that suppress critical thinking. Murphy has specifically criticized "gender ideology" and this terminology has been supported with several sources, yet "gender ideology" has been repeatedly changed to "transgender rights" (for example: 1 and 2), which manipulates the information with a different "flavor". This is a BLP and as such "must be written conservatively ", "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone ", without giving disproportionate space "to particular viewpoints ", and "must be fair to their subjects at all times ". Pyxis Solitary yak 04:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, WP is supposed to follow the terms reliable sources use to characterize BLP subjects, rather than the terms they use to characterize themselves (except for religion and sexuality). The vast majority of sources do not use terms such as "gender ideology" - or your favorite, "trans ideology" - but rather talk about "transgender rights" and "transphobia". Our articles in this domain must follow the RS; your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject should not blind you to that requirement. Newimpartial (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"The vast majority of sources do not use terms such as "gender ideology"". Are we to understand by this that you have personally researched such a volume of sources that you can unequivocally state "vast majority"?
"or your favorite, "trans ideology"". I see. I have a "favorite". Because you say so.
"your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject". You really should refrain from responding to comments because you obviously have a one-track mind and it is not neutral. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a BLP of a Canadian, and I have read the vast majority of Canadian sources bearing on the subject and on questions of Trans inclusion and feminism. My POV is thoroughly situated within Canadian legal and social reaLty and the context of Canadian feminism, all of which is quite relevant to this article.
Also, if you aren't referring admiringly when you point out the subject's "critical opinions about ... cult-like movements that suppress critical thinking", I wonder why you used that turn of phrase. It sounds like admiration to me, or at least allegiance. Newimpartial (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
1) What does her being a Canadian have anything to do with this? Are we supposed to limit our reliable sources for a BLP to those published in the nation the person originates from? She filed a lawsuit against Twitter Inc. in the United States. She has given speeches about gender ideology and transgender legislation in Scotland. It is patently absurd to narrow reliable sources down to those published in a particular nation.
2) Try familiarizing yourself with the article before talking about it. Views: "Murphy has identified certain contemporary movements as "cult-like" in their efforts to shut down debates by calling people "phobic" (such as "whorephobic") or accusing them of "shaming" (as in "kink-shaming") if they fail to "toe the party line"." That material existed before I came along.
But more importantly, stop trying to turn this discussion into a personal tennis match. Because with every "personal comment" you show that you have abandoned neutrality in this matter, and are standing on hollow ground. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
1) My point about the subject being Canadian, is that the use of labels (even contentious ones) is often nationally-specific. When Canadian sources routinely refer to the subject's publications as "trans-exclusionary" (as centre-right Global news does in this case, for example), it makes sense for WP to follow those sources and the terms they use in the national context where the subject is politically active. (This has been an issue with other Canadian BLPs for terms such as "far right", where some editors have tried to whitewash articles using the significance of these political labels in other media environments.)
2) Please don't move the goalposts. You have accepted the subject's characterization of other feminist movements as "cult-like" rather than using another note neutral word choice; by doing so, you have led me to believe that you support the subject's POV in this analysis. If I have read you incorrectly, I apologise.
Overall, you are referring to as "personal" my comments here which are anything but. Maybe the log of your own BIASes should be more the object of your attention. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"you are referring to as "personal" my comments here which are anything but": "or your favorite, "trans ideology" ... your obvious admiration for this particular BLP subject", "It sounds like admiration to me, or at least allegiance." nuff said. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I like how, when your two numbered (substantive) points are addressed, you decide the most important thing is to show why you find my comments to be peraonal. Nice goalpost slide. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no knowledge of these topics, but we do need to enforce WP:LABEL - however, if quality third-party sources identify these BLPs as such, I see no problem with adding it into the article, noting this determination's likely to be controversial. I'm happy to weigh in impartially if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

*Comment If third part sources say it so can we, I wondered how low this would take (and in fact wondered it about 30 years ago, but in context of race and sex rather then sex and sex). Personally the label is overlong and silly, but if its the one applied, tough. NOw we should not say it in our voice, unless it is overwhelming said by others.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The term "radical feminist" has been around for half a century and is not a slur, but in fact has been used by many notable feminists to describe themselves. In this way "radical", is not considered a slur by anyone.

The words "trans-exclusionary" are a prefix to radical feminist to describe in a precise and accurate way, that person's anti-trans views, based upon the premise that recognizing trans women as women damages the rights or freedoms of women. People who have become notable for their TERF views include men as well as women and self identified trans women. I cannot get very excited about category debates, however WP:LABEL is not being breached by the correct use of "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" to describe people who are precisely that, based on their own publications which promote both radical feminist views and trans-exclusionary views such as rejecting the recognition of trans women as women, making a big issue out of trans women using women's toilets, or claiming that "trans-activism" (presumably anyone who supports transgender equality) "erases lesbianism".[9] None of the BLPs at the start of this thread is made in the least bit controversial by stating that these people who are highly or solely notable for their self promotion as anti-trans pundits, are correctly called "trans-exclusionary radical feminists". The repeated lobbying against and blanking of "trans-exclusionary", just because the BLP subject says those accurate words are a slur, is not a reason for us to start censoring Wikipedia.

By the way, the statement at the start of this tread "When this is pointed out, there is usually push-back from a transgender editor or an editor who agrees with labeling these people as TERFs." looks to my eyes very much like an attempt to shame or scare our very few openly trans editors from contributing to trans related articles. I hope that impression is my mistake, and not the result of an unpleasantly hostile tactic to suppress contributions. Thanks -- (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"looks to my eyes very much like an attempt to shame or scare our very few openly trans editors from contributing to trans related articles". And this comes from the same editor who said in the "First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist" Murphy talk page discussion: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year" . (That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion.)
Threatening an editor with Arbcom d/s, because I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction".
The goody two-shoes drivel is pure hypocrisy. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Could you try to avoid creating juvenile personal fights or forum shopping your perceived grievances please? You were not mentioned in anything I wrote here, neither did I reference any of your contributions. I have no idea why you wish to defend a statement that appears to casually target transgender Wikipedians as being a problem for Wikipedia articles about transgender topics, or dismiss my observation of this being an issue as "goody two-shoes drivel". Thanks a lot. -- (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You're going to be sighing a lot. Because every time you and I are in the same discussion and you try to intimidate me with threats of Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions, I will make a point of letting other editors know in other discussions we are involved in about what you did and how you like to abuse the system. All your "thank you's" and 'polite' camouflage do not, and will not, hide your true colors. Because editors who are familiar with you may know your modus operandi, but those editors who are not familiar with you deserve to know how you use ArbCom d/s as a weapon to bully editors. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Pyxis Solitary, is "trans ideology" something like "gay agenda"? Because if it is, the warning about d/s sanctions is very appropriate. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No. An "ideology" is The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual. An "agenda" is The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group. "Ideology" is a theory. For example: "Personal ideology is a component of personality that guides an individual's understanding of where value lies in life. Information on lesbians and personal ideology is a sparsely researched domain"; and "the controversies that fueled these debates in the 1970s were never settled, and the contradictions in lesbian ideology that reflect them were never resolved".
"Trans ideology" is short for "transgender ideology", and is another term for "gender identity ideology". "Transgender ideology" and "gender identity ideology" are interchangeable terms. Some examples that deal with "trans ideology/transgender ideology/gender identity ideology" (don't be surprised if a couple of editors attempt to shoot the messenger):
–  "$424 million is a lot of money. Is it enough to change laws, uproot language and force new speech on the public, to censor, to create an atmosphere of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology?...Some of the organizations Jennifer owns and funds are especially noteworthy to examining the rapid induction of transgender ideology into medical, legal and educational institutions." (underscore mine)
–  "Transgender ideology is an outcome of the meteoric rise of Queer Theory which, contrary to the claims of trans activists, does not reject biological essentialism, but reifies it by simply reversing the order: It asserts that binary sex — being female or male — is socially “assigned,” not a biological fact; in contrast gender — an individual’s feeling of “femininity” or “masculinity” — is said to be pre-social, emerging from the inner being."
–  "Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them...transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept."
–  "According to transgender ideology, a person who “identifies” as a sex opposite to their “assigned gender” should be unquestioningly treated as though they really are of that other sex."
–  "it is also important to understand that, far from loosening the shackles of gender, modern trans ideology often tightens them. Feminism offers the radical proposition that what you like, what you wear and who you are should not be dictated by your chromosomes, hormones or any other marker of biological sex. Trans ideology reverses that".
–  "prior to answering gender identity questions, the children in the Fast and Olson study had current transgender ideology presented to them with no reference to desistance".
–  "gender ideology suggests that people, in effect, create themselves; each person defines “who they are,” choosing a gender identity that feels authentic (regardless of anatomy or conformity to the natural law)."
–  "The concept of gender is not precisely defined, but we are to understand that gender identity is the individual’s feeling of being either a man, a woman, or neither of these. The problem with this is that male and female aren’t feelings...In transgender politics, the physical anatomy of the body can be reinterpreted based on the subjective identity that one has."
–  "several of the more popular answers on the list—critiques of feminism, critiques of homosexuality, critiques of race- and gender-based affirmative action, importance of racial differences in IQ and behavior for social programs, critiques of transgender “ideology”—concern the identity, status, and treatment of people."
–  "Murphy appeared at a sold-out event titled "Gender Identity Ideology and Women's Rights"."
As for my comment in the Meghan Murphy talk page which was a response to another comment, Masem said in Clarification request: GamerGate:
"The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling [sic ] because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG." M
His comment referred to the statement by Johnuniq:
"I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request." J
So, yeah. As much as you may want to throw a former administrator a lifejacket for the virulent response to my comment in the Murphy talk page, Fæ used ArbCom d/s as a weapon and did bully and tried to intimidate me with the "you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia" threat. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to respond to this wall of text, but since another editor has cited its authority as a "gotcha" argument at ANI, I feel impelled to answer it here. What Pyxis Solitary has done here is to assemble a collection of non-RS op-eds and screeds in conservative blogs to make the case that "Trans ideology" exists or is somehow an objective term. This is nonsense: trans people are as diverse as any other group of people (as evidenced by the diverse trans responses to the BC Human Rights Tribunal debacle), and the existence of diverse gender identities is a widely-observed empirical fact (noted among others by demographers) and not an "ideology". Baiting other editors based one one's personal belief that "Trans ideology" exists is no different from deploying "the gay agenda" or "Cultural Marxism" in the same way, and in fact it is mostly the same people who buy into all three caricatures. And what any of this has to do with feminism - the terrain within which this discussion was originally framed - I have no clear idea. Citing paleoconservatives about varieties of feminism makes roughly as much sense as quoting New Atheists about varieties of fundamentalist Christianity or Islam: not likely to be reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Baiting other editors based one one's personal belief that "Trans ideology" exists is no different from deploying "the gay agenda"....". I see that you like to wield the same baseball bat in more than one discussion.
    So I'll repeat here what I said to you in the other one: "First of all — in case anyone thinks it was — the term "trans ideology" was not included in the Meghan Murphy article. My comment in the talk page was based on Murphy's own words: "I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation." (in Views.) I've seen "gender identity ideology" and "transgender ideology" used synonymously in many articles I've found. You think "trans ideology" is "a baiting word" ... I don't. I see it as an offshoot of identity politics. Just because someone in a discussion thinks "transgender ideology" is the same as saying "gay agenda" does not make it so." \*/
    The content you call a "wall of text" cites The Federalist, New York Magazine, The Economist, Morning Star, Daily Nous, CTV News, two scholars, and other writings. You may want to dismiss material that you label "conservative", but WP:BIASED is unambiguous: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."
    As for the material (i.e. facts, information, or ideas) and its sources, to quote another editor in that ANI discussion: "to develop articles, we may need to in good faith discussion [sic ] external views that are hostile to trans individuals or the group as a whole....WP is a "respectful space"...and we will not tolerate editors insulting trans individuals, but this doesn't mean that we will not discuss material that may be insulting to trans individuals as long as it has a purpose."
    \*/ – comment in Murphy talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
My reply.[10][11]. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
This is all well and good. And I am certainly not saying that editors should not discuss wackadoodle theories on Talk pages, since that among other things would be putting me out of a job. :p. But this must be done with a degree of respect and sensitivity that has not always been shown in these discussions. And if you think that an op-ed in The Economist or on CTV news is a RS for "gender identity ideology" as a "fact": well, you may have another think coming. This isn't a matter of bias, it is about expertise, and the reason I mentioned the conservatism of The Federalist blog is, as I suggested earlier, that it is therefore removed further from having something knowledgeable to say about feminism and lesbianism. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
My reply.[12] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • If the person or organization specifically states that they exclude trans-women (in some way) as women, then the description or categorization is applicable. If multiple reliable-sources state as much, with adequate evidence and unbiased reporting, then the description or categorization would appear to be applicable if cited and well-sourced in the article itself as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The description or categorization should not be lightly applied and any disagreement should err on not using the description or categorization absent WP:CONSENSUS. Absent obviousness, just report any obviously relevant information, reliably sourced and worded without WP:UNDUE weight, without using any labels or categorization. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've gathered a small list of sources on my user page which show that "TERF" is a highly contentious term. It only took about 15 minutes to compile and could surely be expanded. I don't think there are any neutral reliable sources (like a nonpartisan news article) calling someone a "TERF." As such, Wikipedia must not use it to describe people. Some of the editors who insist on doing so seem to have very strong personal feelings and political perspectives on the topic. Rhino (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
As commented elsewhere, most of these are not reliable sources, most are recycling anti-trans lobbying quotes from writers that are clearly trans-exclusionary as they vehemently oppose transgender equality. "feministcurrent" and "quillette" are effectively blog hosts for mostly extremist and self-promotional editorials and are not reliable sources for anything but evidence of personal opinions. The three links you give under 'news' include two BBC articles which appear to say nothing about "TERF" and the IHE article which ends with the opposite of the point you appear to want to demonstrate. This is not a helpful list.
By the way, accusing those that counter your viewpoint as being guilty of "strong person feelings and political perspectives", leaves out the personal abuse that we are targeted with by those supporting your views, such as Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses diff, posted by the creator of this BLPN thread. I guess this is the new normal on Wikipedia for acceptable discussion/lobbying when it comes to transgender issues; there will be no sanctions for this sort of targeted harassment. -- (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You like to assume the worse, huh? I responded, at my talk page[13], and below with sources, but my talk page ain't gonna be a place for us to duke things out. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The simple fact is that these people are identified as TERFs by large numbers of reliable sources. A number of people dislike the label, so I would support renaming the category to a more neutral term such as "Anti-transgender in feminism". Guy (Help!) 13:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"Dislike" is not normally how Wikipedia decides on what words to censor. What policy supports that approach rather than sources and evidence? -- (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The oldest policy of them all: don't be a dick. It's a contentious label, it requires attribution in text, so using it as a category is a serious problem that can easily be fixed by using a more neutral term that encompasses their admitted and acknowledged views on trans people without being gratuitously offensive. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Because calling people "dicks" is being deliberately hostile and unnecessarily sexual, "DICK" was changed to Jerk years ago, but I guess you know that. It's not a policy, it's an essay, it's not even a Wikipedia essay, and even that essay tells you to not do what you have just done, but I guess you know that too. How about sticking to actual policies when lecturing someone while wearing your sysop hat? Thanks -- (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Comment If multiple high-quality reliable sources apply a label to a person, then we can also adopt that label. That said: I don't think that we necessarily have strong enough sourcing to describe Meghan Murphy as a "feminist" or a "trans-exclusionary feminist" in Wiki-voice. Both descriptions are contested. We do have plenty of sources saying that her stances on those issues have led others to claim that she is anti-trans, and that controversy is probably the main reason she meets WP:GNG, so that debate should be reflected in the lead. Nblund talk 14:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per others above, if reliable sources refer to a subject as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, then our articles may as well. I think the safe choice is to attribute claims of trans-exclusionary politics unless IAR applies. So cases where the subject themself adopts the label or the label is applied by nearly all sources. As for categorization, I'm not sure whether that's appropriate in most instances per WP:BLPCAT and WP:NONDEF. Unless someone is known primarily for trans-exclusionary politics, inclusion in such a category is not appropriate. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
True, but Meghan Murphy is the paradigmatic case if someone whose primary claim to WP:N is precisely that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources. This is not complicated: apply WP:V and its subsidiary policies such as WP:WEIGHT, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, just as we would with any other contested political label.
And please, listen to , and drop the hostility to trans editors. All our editors — gay, straight, trans, cis, non-binary, radfem or whatever – are entitled to contribute to wilkipedia without being accused of being POV-pushers just because they ask that Wikipedia articles include all perspectives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out the way the Halo Jerk1's original post singles transgender editors out for criticism, repeating that phrase 3 times. Per WP:NPA, we're supposed to Comment on content, not on the contributor. And we're not supposed to use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views nor use derogatory phrases based on...gender identity. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The disputes are trans disputes and include trans editors. I said "transgender editors or other editors." Your attempt to frame me as bigoted toward transgender editors conveniently leaves out where I kept saying "or other editors" too. WP:NPA and "comment on the contributor" ain't got jack shit to do with my original post. Good try, though. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Rereading this discussion, a lot of the comments seem to basically say that if RS mention it, so should we. The problem is that the original issue is mainly about if the label TERF or transphobic should be stated in Wikivoice, or attributed, per WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE. So, I pinged back some participants to ask this question:

Should Wikipedia state someone is a TERF or is transphobic in its voice, or should such a statement be given attribution?Edit

It seemed that so far 7 favored attribution in this case, 2 favored Wikivoice, and 10 didn't specify.

Pinging:

User:UnitedStatesian, User:Milowent, User:Someguy1221, User:Seraphimblade, User:SportingFlyer, User:Slatersteven, User:Softlavender, User:JzG, User:Wugapodes

Thank you for your time. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads1, please remove me from your summary, and preferably remove it too. Please ask people to place themselves on such a scale, rather than attempting to do it for them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I changed it to avoid offense. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright. So, for me, it's not a simple binary. If reliable sources dispute among themselves whether the term is applicable, we note the dispute over it without taking a side. If reliable sources widely use the term, but the subject disputes it, we state it as factual—subjects can dispute anything, but if reliable sources frequently ignore such objections and state it as fact, we do the same. We might note briefly that the subject disputes the characterization, but we don't permit a simple objection to reduce it to "A and B and C and D and E say..."; at that point, we say what the sources do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade gets it right. This is not a simple binary, and Seraphimblade's summary is a good overview of how to approach this. We follow the independent reliable sources, not the subject's preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm also not really okay with being counted as offering blanket opposition to using the phrase "trans-exclusionary" in cases where reliable sources also use it consistently. Nblund talk 22:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I already made myself pretty clear, and my points were according to standard Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a problem that has not been addressed in this discussion when referring to "sources". Time and again, sources that meet the criteria for reliability are disputed and/or removed from this and other articles with a trans-related subject when said sources are from conservative media (or deemed unsympathetic to a personal POV), for example: this one deleted The Daily Wire, AfterEllen, The Spectator, and Murphy's "Why I'm Suing Twitter" in Quillette, which existed in the content about Twitter for some time. There is also nitpicking about the validity and acceptability of sources, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4 (I responded to #4). There is an obvious pattern at play here, and it is not WP:NPOV and what WP:RS stands for (which, by the way, states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective ". In the minds of some editors, the only valid sources are those that criticize or support the criticism of public figures such as Meghan Murphy. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What folks have been objecting to is saying things in Wiki's voice. What folks have been pointing out is that quality sourcing is lacking on both ends. Editors in this thread have talked of "third-party sources" and "multiple high-quality reliable sources," but most of the sources on both ends are opinion pieces. This prompted Rhinocera to say "Fae, Newimpartial, when you cherry-pick news articles and op-eds that support your point of view, and ignore or misrepresent news articles and op-eds that oppose your point of view because you dislike their authors, of course it will look like reliable sources agree with you. News articles and op-eds from the reliable sources in my user page show that 'TERF' as a term is the subject of acute public debate, and as such cannot be used by Wikipedia in an objective way to describe someone. The sources I provided are not any less reliable than the ones currently provided in the article. I would like to point once more at WP:BLPCOI, since I believe your strong personal views on the matter are clouding your judgment."[15] Newimpartial's response was "Rhino, by your own account you are citing IHE and two op-eds. Sure, The Guardian and The New Stateman are RS, but per NEWSORG, opinion pieces are not to be generally used for descriptive statements, and you are giving us opinions only. It is also worth noting again that this is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article. We have many citations in this article from reliable (including mainstream) news organizations; let's try not to water it down."[16] Newimpartial says this, but the TERF page is full of opinion pieces, with some being used to state things in Wiki's voice. If sources for "TERF" are so high-quality, then why does the "Opposition to the word" section have stronger sourcing than the "Responses to opposition" section? And we should really prioritize American sources over UK sources because "TERF" ideology is supposedly stronger in the UK? Who gets to decide that? Opinion piece sources? Where are the academic sources? And does anyone actually agree with Newimpartial saying "It is also worth noting again that is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article."?
  • "TERF" being considered a slur, a term that is often used to silence voices (especially women's voices) or against lesbians for their same-sex attraction, isn't just being reported on by "TERF sources" or "anti-trans" sources. Inside Higher Ed says, "For some, using the word 'TERF' means calling out transphobia where they see it. For others, the word is a slur that has no place in academic discourse."[17] Daily Nous says, "'TERF' is widely used across online platforms as a way to denigrate and dismiss the women (and some men) who disagree with the dominant narrative on trans issues. The acronym stands for 'Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist', and historically marked a difference within radical feminism. Although its usage is becoming ever broader, one of the groups it targets are lesbians who merely maintain that same-sex attraction is not equivalent to transphobia, another is women who believe that women's oppression is sex-based, and are concerned about erasing the political importance of female bodies."[18] This facet ain't even covered on the TERF page. If it were added, it would mostly like be removed. Daily Nous also says that seven philosophers stated that TERF is "at worst a slur and at best derogatory." The Economist required its writers to "avoid all slurs, including TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women."[19] The New Statesman says, "The term TERF - 'trans exclusionary radical feminist' has become internet shorthand for 'transphobic bigot'. The odd thing is that most people hold beliefs which could see them labelled a 'TERF'." It says, "At the weekend a letter was published in the Observer, signed by 130 people, which called for open debate in universities and criticised the silencing or 'no platforming' of people whose views are deemed transphobic or whorephobic." It also says, "What gets repeated in public is that the TERFs are simply bigots, attacking a small and oppressed minority out of irrational fear and loathing. They are accused of disputing trans people's right to exist, and of inciting violence against them. If that were true, the no-platforming would be justified. But with very few exceptions it is not true. What gets people labelled TERFs is not their opposition to the fundamental rights most trans people care about. Rather it is a form of political dissent." They additionally say, "In some circles it is considered transphobic for women to question the presence of people with openly displayed male sexual organs in spaces like communal female changing rooms, or for lesbian women to refuse to recognise those people as potential sexual partners (a resistance sometimes referred to as 'the cotton ceiling', a phrase which smacks of misogyny and male entitlement). It isn't just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too. Is that really just irrational bigotry?"[20]
  • BrownHairedGirl girl said, "And please, listen to Fæ, and drop the hostility to trans editors. All our editors — gay, straight, trans, cis, non-binary, radfem or whatever – are entitled to contribute to wilkipedia without being accused of being POV-pushers just because they ask that Wikipedia articles include all perspectives." Please listen to Fæ, who has repeatedly disparaged, and been hostile to, editors across trans topics?[21][22][23][24] This ain't about not being civil to trans editors, and the trans editors who are gatekeeping particular articles aren't the ones seeking to include "all perspectives" anyhow. The issue is the sourcing, the weight allowed for particular perspectives, and the way the facets are framed. Editors aren't trying to hurt trans people. Masem said it best at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: "To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be 'safe spaces' where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq [mentioned] is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss.[25]. Please read the other comments there too. Seems to me that Fæ often sees offense where it's not intended. EdChem, I meant no harm. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Halo Jerk1, you may have meant no harm, but that third paragraph is some of the most selective quotation I have ever seen. Even for the Inside Higher Ed piece you have not preserved the balance of the article, and for the others you are pretending that op-ed opinions are speaking with the editorial weight of each RS. Where did you learn to do that?? It isn't the way sources are used, at least not on WP or anywhere else that sources matter. Newimpartial (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You are talking about selective quoting, with what you do at these pages with your opinion pieces? Those quotes are to highlight what that paragraph is about, which is that "TERF" is considered a slur by some. It is considered a term that is often used to silence voices (especially women's voices) or against lesbians for their same-sex attraction, and it isn't just "TERF sources" or "anti-trans" sources saying this. We know that you don't like when this is mentioned, but it's there in credible sources. Your opinion pieces are no more credible. You said, "you are pretending that op-ed opinions are speaking with the editorial weight of each RS. Where did you learn to do that?" That's what I want to ask you. Folks have tried to get you and others to see the light on that. Folks have told you that articles should not be based on opinion pieces, but you still persist. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Halo Jerk1, I am talking about your presenting an Inside Higher Ed piece describing a conflict as if it were endorsing the "pro-TERF" perspective on that conflict, through selective quotations. I am talking about your presenting op-eds representing FRINGE (anti-trans) viewpoints as being equivalent in WEIGHT to thoughtful and reasoned analyses by research journalists and scholars. What will it take to convince you that presenting two equal sides in this issue is purest FALSEBALANCE? Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
One more time, we follow the sources. It is not up to you, or me, or anyone else, to decide what to say on Wikipedia. It is up to those sources. We reflect them, not second-guess or dispute them. If the consensus of reliable sources is that someone should be called that, we follow their lead. If not, we don't. If in dispute between those sources, we reflect the dispute without taking a side. If the sources are in agreement, but the subject is not—well, too damn bad, we reflect what the independent reliable sources say. It is up to the sources, not up to us, what we put in our articles. We distill and reflect our sources. We do not dispute or change them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, so you don't understand WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE? Have you not read those pages? The way you are talking shows a misunderstanding of how we follow sources. Is WP:WIKIVOICE not explicit in what we are supposed to do? It is up to us when it concerns how we apply and follow sources. Opinion pieces being in agreement mean nothing since they are opinion pieces and there are a lot of other opinion pieces that disagree with them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Halo Jerk1, do try not to live up to the portion of your username before the "1". I've been editing Wikipedia both far more and far longer than you, so don't you presume to tell me what I do and don't understand. If reliable sources are in widespread consensus, we don't "attribute" that, because that would itself violate NPOV. If sources are in widespread consensus, we state what they have to say as fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I'm gonna continue to follow what WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE say. Opinions do not become facts because they are widely reported. But you do you. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"The intro there now, thanks to Rhinocera, says....". Not as of 03:43, 4 August 2019. It is not permitted. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Responses.[27][28]. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A point: between both LABEL, IMPARTIAL and YESPOV, we are not required to presume what RSes say as fact, if it is believed by consensus of editors to be a contentious statement to make in wikivoice, but per WEIGHT, if multiple RSes use labeling terms towards a person, it is absolutely not appropriate to ignore it, assuming all other parts of BLP are met, namely if the person would be considered a public figure. A label should only really be considered factual in wikivoice if we have years of scholarly review of that person to make it an accepted academic fact that has withstood the test of time (eg Duke). As I noted before, just now looking at the article in question, it is written quite appropriate for a label outside of wikivoice, following all this advice (Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech. --Masem (t) 04:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Masem, thanks. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Halo Jerk1 I have made no comment on you at all. I offered some general advice to without referring to any specific incident. My position / post at ARCA was making two major points: firstly, I was noting that the ArbCom motions do appear contradictory and clarification is warranted; secondly, that it is important to tailor actions to deal with cases of deliberate provocation and trolling, accident / misunderstanding / ignorance, and campaigning. Each of these calls for different responses, no matter the identity of the editor nor the category of their action. Following on from the latter, I offered some advice to Fæ who I have seen on wiki in different situations over the years. I offered no comment to you but since you have pinged me, I will say this:
(1) If you wanted to talk to me about my ARCA post, the appropriate venues are on that ARCA thread or on my user talk page. Pinging me to a BLP/N discussion in which I was not previously involved to comment on a post at another venue is not generally appropriate. It could be seen as canvassing, which is one reason that I'm not going to address this thread at all.
(2) As far as I can see, you have not participated in nor been mentioned in the ARCA thread. Some of your post here seems to be about the ARCA. If you want to comment on the ARCA, my advice is to comment at the ARCA.
(3) Your comment that "Fæ often sees offense where it's not intended" is problematic in that those who are on the receiving end of prejudiced remarks and who have experienced being the outsider and a member of a minority are precisely the people most likely to see prejudice and are best positioned to calling it out. If you are making comments that Fæ sees as offensive, I'd suggest stopping and thinking. Is what Fæ has raised something that you see as acceptable but where you can easily accommodate a request to avoid repeating that comment / behaviour / action? Is there an opportunity to learn about a perspective that you may lack familiarity with / experience of and in so doing become able to reconsider whether your perspective might be worth adjusting? Is this a situation where Fæ is being overly sensitive or even unreasonable in your view, and if so, could a respectful discussion and exchange of views help to reduce tension? Just because you don't intend to give offense doesn't mean that someone else doesn't perceive offense, and as with many situations with differing perspectives, the issue is not so much "am I right or wrong?" as "can we find a way forward that is mutually satisfactory?" I make no comment on any specific interaction that you have had with Fæ or your actions, my comments are general and offered as thoughts for you to consider.
I will not continue this discussion here as it is off topic for this noticeboard. EdChem (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, I know you didn't comment on me. I wanted ya to know that editors aren't trolling Fæ or usually being hostile to Fæ at these pages. Your point is taken about going to your talk page about that. A lot of editors have stopped and thought about what offense they may have caused Fæ. Fæ seeing offense, which happens a lot, doesn't mean any offense was there. I suggest you look at threads like this one.[29] What offense were editors causing Fæ? Compare Fæ's behavior to theirs. Keep reading past that thread. If you don't wanna, okay, but my view is that Fæ has been overly sensitive and hostile. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It much more than my fault at taking "offense" with your edits. You recently blanked your talk page where this was spelt out very clearly diff. You are deliberately targeting me with harassing, false and bullying abuse in order to disrupt discussion about transgender topics. You know exactly what you are doing, and you appear here just to troll others and testing the line of how far you can push it. Here are some examples:
Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses. diff
You agreeing with the anon wanting Pyxis Solitary "forbidden from editing this page" because of their exclusive sexual attraction to non-trans women or even for saying "trans ideology" is despicable. It's also homophobic as fuck. diff
Ah, but I mustn't forget. Some of y'all call any lesbian a TERF. I guess Pyxis Solitary isn't permitted to call herself a homosexual female and say she's not into trans women. diff
However, the good news for you is that administrators are uninterested in enforcing the discretionary sanctions that apply to transgender issues, contributors just have to grow a skin like a rhinoceros and put up with this sort of childish offensive trolling like it was a "joke", when it's like having a boot stamping on your face. -- (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Correct, I replied to you on my talk page.[30]. In my assessment of your behavior across talk pages, it appears that you think everyone is deliberately targeting you, harassing you, or bullying you. Never mind how you deliberately target, harass you, or bully folks. On top of this, man, you've accuse me of trolling. Erm, okay. I think other editors agreeing with me on WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE is a reflection that I'm not trolling. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: The sentence ""Her views on transgender issues led to Murphy being labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF, a label which she rejects and considers to be hate speech." was deleted and re-deleted. Resulting in the article being restricted. 11:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute statements of someone being TERF in light of linking to the current wording @ TERF which says the hallmark feature is "transphobic hatred". Saying that someone hates trans people because they don't believe a trans woman is a woman (or aren't attracted to trans women, or etc.) is quite a contentious opinion more than a factual observation. WP:LABEL is plain: ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
As a practical matter, would the multiple and reliably sourced evidence that Murphy is mainly famous for being banned from Twitter, having her legal challenge against the ban fail, and being no-platformed by notable organizations for her actual-proven-in-court hate speech against trans women, be sufficient evidence of "transphobic hatred"? Checking as having your hatred officially recognized in court, seems like the most extreme type of evidence one could expect. -- (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"Checking as having your hatred officially recognized in court, seems like the most extreme type of evidence one could expect." Wishful thinking. Try reading Meghan Murphy v. Twitter Inc.. Excerpt:
The parties' dispute centers on whether Murphy seeks to impose liability on Twitter in its capacity as publisher...Murphy's reliance on Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.Al P.4th 294 is misplaced...Murphy's complaint is not seeking to hold Twitter liable for its purely commercial statements to users or potential 'advertisers.' Rather, all of her claims challenge Twitter's interpretation and application of its Terms of Service and Hateful Conduct Policy to require Murphy to remove certain content she had posted in her Twitter account, to suspend that account, and ultimately to ban her from posting from Twitter due to her repeated violations of the Terms of Service and Policy. All of those actions reflect paradigmatic editorial decisions not to publish particular content, and therefore are barred by Section 230...For the foregoing reasons, Twitter's special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is denied, and its demurrer to the complaint is sustained without leave to amend."
The suit was dismissed under Section 230. That's it. There is no official recognition of "hatred". And Twitter's motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (the SLAPP statute) was denied. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Murphy attempted to sue Twitter, and she got nowhere, super. The point being that she had zero grounds to go to court on the basis of the content of her tweets (the locus of the case), because her lawyers could not challenge Twitter's perfectly correct assessment of her words being hate speech, precisely the hate speech against trans women that Twitter's policies prohibit on the basis of being hate speech against "members of a protected category". The point here is that the evidence was presented in court and the court found no basis to challenge Twitter's actions. What your remarks underline is how even Murphy has not challenged the definition of her publication of misgendering tweets as being "hate speech". So, Twitter calls it "hate speech", Murphy does not legally disagree that she wrote "hate speech", and the courts have no issue with the process that Twitter followed for removing hate speech from their website, and certainly the courts have not ordered Twitter to restore Murphy's hateful comments, which I guess was what Murphy was hoping for.
Looking at the court record, you appear to have cherry-picked a rather abstract point. The court did examine the Tweets in question in order to assess the nature of public interest, so the Tweets are part of the legal record. Without repeating the main parts of the hate speech (let's avoid that please) direct quotes from the court record which "officially" puts the on record that Murphy's words are hate speech:
Twitter claimed that Murphy had violated its Hateful Conduct Policy by posting Tweets that expressed views critical of transgender people and of what Murphy describes as the "notion of transgenderism." ... "It then banned her permanently after she asserted that a transgender woman in Canada formerly named ..."
In the summary the court recognized her repeated violations of the Terms of Service and Policy as a matter of fact.
Still does not read like "wishful thinking" that this is all evidence that Murphy expresses "hatred" for trans women. Unless you have some other actual evidence? -- (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"Still does not read like "wishful thinking"". Oh, yes it does. Because the court only ruled that the terms of service/policies were Twitter's prerogative to make as a platform publisher. That's what Section 230 is about. Immunity. The publishers are exempt from liability. Section 230 protects the publisher from being sued for content by users. For a reader-friendly explanation of the court's decision: read. The court did not rule on what Murphy tweeted, only that what Twitter did with her account under its ToS qualified for Section 230 protection. (In 2019, legislation was introduced in U.S. Congress to modify Section 230 with requirements regarding neutrality and transparency). Pyxis Solitary yak 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In regards to When this is pointed out, transgender editors or other editors say the the opposing side has less weight and they prioritize American sources over British sources because they say that TERF ideology is stronger in Britain I think it would be appropriate to provide a diff on that, as any such removal rationale would clearly violate WP:RS and should be brought to ANI. Repeatedly doing so, should result to temporary ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, the comment "transgender editors ... say the the opposing side has less weight" is an humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians. It cannot be blithely given a "diff", because is just an attack against a minority group based on "dislike". Why anyone would think that making this claim about Wikipedia editors is anything other than harassment and abuse, and why others, like yourself, sit back and say things like, "oh could we have a diff for that please", rather than asking that person making the blatantly false claim about transgender people should be blocked, remains a puzzle to me. Maybe you could provide an explanation that makes sense?
My acid test would be whether a rationale that supports the statement attacking transgender editors, would be accepted and go unremarked, say, if the same thing were said about Jewish editors must all be biased if they edit articles about Judaism. Thanks -- (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't like it when folks cast aspersions your way, but you have no qualms about casting aspersions others folks' way. Saying "transgender editors" is a "humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians"? You claim I dislike transgender people? Good gracious, the spin doctoring. An editor said it best when he said, "Fæ is very good at finding reasons to dismiss editors and make untoward insinuations."[31] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
We dont have protected classes on wiki and your personal griefs of beefs do not interest me for a single second. If you have nothing to say but just another rambling, just spare your fingers some typing. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Not a personal grief, this is a general question of policy. You appear to agree with Halo Jerk1, the original creator of this BLP/N thread, that transgender Wikipedians editing certain types of article are a problem for Wikipedia. Could you explain what you are proposing is done about this problem? Thanks -- (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Im on wiki for 11 years and if you think that you are first one to use this you are sorely mistaken. I dont answer to you and I have no intention of playing game of someone whose contribution in these discussions border on instigating series of flame wars, with no good faith to be found. Now, tata. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute as per reasons I've given before. Rhino (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute and even then it should be used carefully and this is clearly a contentious and relatively recent LABEL. It appears that we have a case were some of the article subjects/people who are being called "TERF" are objecting. It would be better for our readers if instead of pushing to include a contentious label we were to say "this person doesn't consider trans women to be part of X because Y... this view is controverisal because of Z". As the term is seen as prjorative Wikipedia should never use, in wiki-voice, phrases like "TERFs objecto to the X..." As I side note, in looking through the various related discussions, I've been distrubed by the behavior of several of the involved editors. There is clear advocacy superceeding NPOV as well as impartial tone. There is also a lot of battleground behavior by editors who should know better. Springee (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not that simple. From reading the comments by editors who wish to apply widely the term 'TERF', and the published works of some of those to whom they wish to apply it, I have concluded that these editors are happy to label as TERF anyone who asks questions about men who are part-way through transitioning to transgender women having access to some 'women only' places. It is not an exclusion of all transgender people from all places set aside for women. The label conceals the detail of what is said by its intended subjects. I accept that my conclusion may be wrong, but if it is right, the term 'TERF' is too broad a brush for Wikipedia to use, except with the greatest of care and in limited and fully justified circumstances. So, I disagree with User:Springee's summary of the situation, but not the recommended course of action.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, as one of the editors looking to apply the term TERF somewhat broadly, ThoughtIdRetired, that is not at all my intention. I only support the application of the term where both of the following apply:
1) Reliable sources characterize the subject as both "trans-exclusionary" and "radical feminist" AND
2) The term "trans-exclusionary" has been correctly applied, through a real intent to exclude people of female gender identity from at least some places (or organizations) set aside for women. People who question how to judge the reality or sincerity of a gender identity declaration, or people who distinguish between Cis- and Trans women as potential relationship partners are not necessarily "trans-exclusionary" in the sense I mean. Most of those RS label as TERF or who describe themselves as "gender critical" insist on using pronouns for others based on sex assignment at birth, which almost certainly makes them "trans-exclusionary" in the real sense.
Springee, I may have been one of the "involved" editors you were referring to, so I hope this has at least clarified (if not mollified) your concern. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute, because RS on usage of the term even in formal academic discourse show that it is highly politicized, a form of dog-whistling: some subset of writers use it as a simple descriptive term, while others use it in a dubious, argument to emotion manner, a form of intimidation and public shame-labelling. It therefore is not suitable for use in Wikipedia's own editorial voice. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute per WP:LABEL. I think TERF should be treated as a contentious label, analogous to 'homophobe', 'racist', 'climate change denialist', etc. I think the clearest argument for it being a contentious label is simply the fact that the vast majority of people to whom the label is applied reject it. I can't think of any labels with that property that would be appropriate to apply in Wikipedia's voice. (Disclosure: I was summoned here via an e-mail from Halo Jerk1, presumably because of my previous participation in discussions on this topic at Talk:Julie Bindel and Talk:Mermaids (charity)). Colin M (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
So you are objecting to the use of "white supremacist" and "far right" in WP's voice, when they are the standard terms used in RS on a subject? Because these terms are routinely used in WP's voice even over the objections of BLP subjects and their sympathizers. Per WP:BLPCAT, it is appropriate to do so, but you seem to think that WP:LABEL takes priority (contra current policy). Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair question of when a label is a "standard term" used by RSes as to make it not necessary to attribute. I am thinking of something to propose at LABEL or BLP, but there is a far difference in a case where I can find articles from dozens of high-quality RSes (eg NYTimes, BBC) over a reasonable period of time (months or more) which that label is nearly always used, and the case where one has to cherry pick a few decent articles from RSes to justify the term. The latter case would apply here, meaning attribution would be necessary. (Note that in the first, I'm not saying that all those need to be referenced, but it should readily apparent from random news searching the term is valid). As I say, this is only formulating the idea, but I think we need some advice for this. This would also then apply to categorization - if its the first case, you can use labeled categorization, otherwise it is not appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think "far right" would meet the test I described above. Many people who are commonly labelled as being on the far right would accept that as an accurate characterization. "White supremacist" is a closer comparison. However, I do think its usage is less polarized along the lines of ingroups and outgroups than TERF. It's also arguably more clearly defined and well-understood (such that "X is a white supremacist" is at least closer to the "fact" side of the fact vs. opinion spectrum than "X is a TERF"). So I could imagine cases where it would be okay to use in Wikivoice, if there was very clear and wide support in RS. But I'd err on the side of attribution if there's any doubt. "Terrorist", "cult", and "fundamentalist" are other examples of terms listed at WP:LABEL which I think could be used in Wiki's voice in some cases, if there's strong sourcing - there are definitely subtle gradations in terms of the contentiousness or 'value-ladenness' of individual terms. Colin M (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick question - since we are talking about fourt articles in opening, do RS call them specifically TERFs (or do they mention TERFs in regards to Mermaids article)? Because if not, BLPCAT is not there to be found. And follow-up, if they do, in what weight are they in regards to other RS used which dont? I ask in regards to not apply WP:RSUW EllsworthSK (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Just went through Murphy sourcing - the lead provides two sources, neither of which mentions TERF in its abbrevation or full name. So...where is the RS? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure I understand the issue and it seems okay to apply the label in most cases where someone makes a sufficient case. In these articles I think that the editors are making sufficient cases. I am not sure about how to make a general rule out of this. WP:LABEL is too short to clarify all situations. I suppose I would like for a group of people to commit the labor to organize a community discussion and consensus statement on this, but then also, these kinds of discussions are getting more frequent and we also need a meta-process for making community discussions more orderly, less work to call, and so that they produce more respected outcomes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't attribute, though this is something of a reductive question—my position is that we shouldn't always attribute. I agree with above, and the comparisons to labels such as "white supremacist", particularly Seraphimblade's If reliable sources widely use the term, but the subject disputes it, we state it as factual—subjects can dispute anything, but if reliable sources frequently ignore such objections and state it as fact, we do the same. Obviously the label "TERF" should be attributed if reliable sources are conflicted—this is true of literally any statement where reliable sources have substantial disagreement—but no, we don't need to attribute something that reliable secondary sources [note: not the subject themselves] agree upon. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute / Follow what RS says and WP:UNDUE, editors should not, under any circumstance, be adding labels because they feel that description applies. Either source calls it that, and there is sufficient sourcing to not violate WP:UNDUE or it does not. Murphy sourcing does not, it provides zero RS calling her TERF. The Mermaid article sources PinkNews which is not accepted as RS via consensus per WP:RSP. Bindel and Raymond wiki articles dont mention TERF so, not really relevant. I feel like the 101 of wiki, that has been in palce since Jimbo first posted first page, is being forgotten here rather quickly. We dont seek truth, that is not what we do in wiki. If someone has hard time understanding it, read WP:TRUTH. So it doesnt matter if you think its truth. It doesnt matter if you believe its truth. Truth does not have a place here. Only verifiability does. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Please note that there is currently an MfD discussion going to change the name of the category "TERF", with support divided between leaving the category as is, renaming it, and deleting it. There are many, many reliable sources stressing that exclusion of Trans women from women's spaces and non-acceptance of their gender identity is a highly notable aspect of the feminism of many individuals etc., so the argument you have offered may apply to the term "TERF" but not to the underlying category. There is also a proposal under discussion at "Feminist perspectives on transgender issues" to rework the TERF article to include the preferred self-descriptor, "gender critical", on a more parallel basis with TERF, which I also support. The debate over the label should not be allowed to distract from the substantive political debate, discussed in many RS including peer-reviewed academic articles, and in which the label debate is only one of many rhetorical moves. Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • In Murphy case there is zero sources that call her TERF. Zero. Nada. Null. There is utterly nothing to discuss, its not even LABEL at that point. Its just violation of WP:RS and WP:V. You cant attribute something because that is how I read it. Simple as that. Sources call her radical feminist. She calls herself radical feminist. We have article Radical feminism. We are done at this point. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute. Per WP:LABEL; and the opening sentence of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Pyxis Solitary yak 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
» Personal comment re the label "TERF". In my above 04:27, 3 August 2019 comment I state: "As an editor who has been...accused of being a "TERF"...." — you should know that I was called a TERF because in my Profile I unequivocally identify as a lesbian and a homosexual female («» p.s. ... I'm not Queer «»). That's all it takes to be called a TERF by some people and Wikipedia editors. And you should also know that Fæ agreed with the IP editor. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The statement above "That's all it takes to be called a TERF by some people and Wikipedia editors. And you should also know that Fæ agreed with the IP editor." is outrageous self victimization and casting aspersions.

To set the record straight I have never called any Wikipedian a TERF. Furthermore there is no evidence at all that any Wikipedian has been targeted on Wikipedia by being called a TERF by anyone else apart from vandals that have been immediately reverted and blocked. Not a single diff demonstrates that this has happened. In the case that Pyxis Solitary is playing the victim about, it was me that reverted the vandal and warned them about their behaviour; so it is breathtakingly hypocritical to use that vandal's actions against me. Astonishingly the vandal's abusive comment was visible for just 10 minutes until I noticed it and immediately reverted it.

Those casting aspersions are doing so on a topic "protected" by discretionary sanctions. These are bald faced lies. Unless someone can produce diffs, please assume that disruptive hostile remarks like this that appear targeted against "some people" (to quote Pyxis Solitary) or "transgender editors" (to quote Halo Jerk1's opening statement to this BLP/N) are either political spin, distortions of facts or outright lies. The fact that remarks like this are allowed to manipulate a consensus building process, in order to muddy the waters and besmirch the good character of perceived "opponents", on any gender-related topic should be of immediate alarm and concern to any Wikipedian. Thanks -- (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Your statement is undeniable: "Agree with the IP comments". Comment-s. Plural.
2. Yes, you reverted the fake comment and fake signature attributed to me by the IP editor; however, your edit summary provides no reason for doing so. And since I don't give a rat's ass about the IP editor's talk page, whatever you posted in it was unbeknownst to me. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
My statement was perfectly clear as to what I was agreeing with because I qualified my statement. As you don't give a "rat's ass" about the IP's user pages, why do you think for one second that I am interested in what you say on yours?
My clarification was explicit diff "Agree with the IP comments, it's hard to imagine a blog writer that is more typically an active TERF promoting transphobic rhetoric. The arguments that you can never use the term "TERF" to describe anyone, has limits and arguing that Megham Murphy is not a TERF or blatantly transphobic is beyond logic and published fact."
My statement does not call you a TERF, my statement does not make any reference about what the IP claimed was on your talk page. If someone actually wanted to say they are a TERF on their user talk page, good for them, why would I care? Unlike others in this discussion I do not put all self identified lesbians, "gender critical" people, TERFs, or trans women in the same "ideology" bucket in order to dismiss them as a class of people for who they identify as.
Stop playing the victim card, it does not withstand scrutiny when you attack, attack, attack and besmirch others, and does not help this consensus process one iota.
Lastly, if you have been canvassed off-wiki in any way, or can shed any light on any meatpuppetry or sockpuppet manipulation, please make a statement. -- (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"As you don't give a "rat's ass" about the IP's user pages, why do you think for one second that I am interested in what you say on yours?" Oh. Are you the IP editor? And your not being interested in my talk page is a gift from heaven, thank you. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
See WP:SPI if you want to make serious allegations against me of sock puppetry and abuse. Otherwise, stop playing the victim. -- (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not you. I'm not interested in creating a reputation for bitching about every perceived offense. I don't deal in narcissistic wounds. Nor am I interested in carrying pitchforks and lighting torches. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Bitching? Narcissistic? This is not me "perceiving offense", this is clearly you going out of your way to be offensive. Stop playing the victim when you are blatantly attacking others. -- (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Others"? Nope. This may be a lengthy, exhausting thread, but anyone can see what I posted and regarding what. You are the only one that used ArbCom d/s as a weapon to threaten me in the Murphy talk page. You've made your bed, now lie on it. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, can you source the claim that you were called a TERF "because you unequivocally identify as a lesbian and a homosexual female?" Blackened0 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Erm, see this[32]? Ain't you the anon who called her a TERF? I mean, come on now, you even just used her signature as a reply, just like the anon. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The IP 104.232.202.112 editor that made personal attacks and harassed me edited the Murphy article for the first time @ 13:39, 24 July 2019‎. The first comment made by the IP on the talk page was @ 15:06, 1 August 2019.
I don't know who you are, but I know this much: you created your account on 15:01, 26 July 2019 and your only user contribution so far is your question -- and as Halo Jerk1 pointed out: you not only used my signature in your comment, you used it in exactly the same way as the IP. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. Based on my reading, the only people making the connection between you being called a TERF and you being a lesbian are Halo Jerk1 and yourself. You aren't able to justify that harsh claim, which you seem to have conjured and then extended to include . I don't think that these are desirable traits for Wikipedia editors, and I suggest you refrain from editing subjects where your personal biases may be in play. Blackened0 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You silly sockpuppet.
IP 104.232.202.112 was blocked for 36 hours for the personal attacks against me. Examples
Called me a "TERF": "[[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] describes themselves as a TERF on their user page. They should be forbidden from editing this page due to their non-neutral, hateful perspective." IP1;
Falsified my signature to attribute comment to me: "As I said, I'm an ugly hateful TERF. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">yak</span>]] 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)" IP2.
I'll leave it to Admins to deal with the obvious sockpuppetry. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be avoiding the discussion at hand. It's not a personal attack to call a TERF a TERF. This is why the term should be added to the pages of people who are accurately described by it. Blackened0 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It would be fair for you to apologize to . You suggested they were homophobic for referring to you as a TERF, when they did not do that, and that was not the basis for you being called a TERF, by anybody, by any evidence you've been able to share. I also argue that you using homophobia as a made-up trump card to win an argument is damaging to the LGBT community as a whole. I would suggest reading Feminist views on transgender topics#Collaboration against trans rights with conservative groups as it may be relevant or enlightening to you. Blackened0 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
"It's not a personal attack to call a TERF a TERF." Except most folks in this thread have said the opposite.
Sorry, I gotta chuckle and roll my eyes at this. The anon says Pyxis Solitary calls herself a TERF on her user page. The anon says this even though it's based on nothin' that can be connected to the term, except for the fact that she's a lesbian, a connection that reliable sources say exists.[33] And when this reasonable conclusion is made, the anon says what can only be translated into "Y'all are just crazy. Y'all are just harsh and biased." Good laughs, man. The anon (now a registered user) has gotta be trollin.' Your harassment of Pyxis Solitary should get you blocked. It's like you only exist to harass her. Sad. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
"Except most folks in this thread have said the opposite.": most folks in this thread are wrong. This could be due to your canvasing and battleground editing. If you have an issue, start with Talk:TERF, and once you succeed in changing that article, you can revisit this one. Wikipedia currently says "While these feminists [TERFs] perceive the term to be a slur, mainstream feminists, other academics, and trans people have rejected this view" and "fringe TERF scholarship has built a cultural and intellectual foundation upon which the right wing could, by 'selectively highlighting and leveraging', construct anti-trans narratives that appeal to both conservatives and a certain sect of leftists." The "fringe TERF scholarship" in question is your and your friends, except without the scholarship. Blackened0 (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Pure trollin.' Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for conceding the issue. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, feel free to come back. Otherwise, please do not. Blackened0 (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

_____

RfC: Should we provide attribution when using "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" when describing BLP subjects?Edit

Should we provide in-text attribution when using the "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" label in BLPs? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

SurveyEdit

  • Yes. Attribute. Refer to my comment here, folks. Using in-text attribution is in accordance with WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE. To quote Masem, "A label should only really be considered factual in wikivoice if we have years of scholarly review of that person to make it an accepted academic fact that has withstood the test of time (eg Duke)."[35] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. per Halo Jerk1, per the nine other editors above who specifically favored attribution (not counting the sock), and per WP:LABEL's statement "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." TERF in present usage is indeed derogatory, just like transphobe, one of the words specifically mentioned by WP:LABEL, and so it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. We shouldn't be using Wikipedia's voice unless there's broad consensus among high-quality, secondary, non-opinion/non-news sources of lasting impact that the label applies to the person. I would honestly say we shouldn't even be labeling in the voice of others unless there's widespread agreement on the term outside the recentist/immediateist press. I really don't see the value in this specific label anyway. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Also I am opposed to procedurally closing this. I wasn't canvassed. I, like many if not most of the people here, just happened to notice the RfC through my watchlist. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. I don't really know (being neither a feminist, LBGTQ, woman or even gender dysphoric) whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. But some radical feminists object to begin called "TERFs". We could see the trendier WP:RS start using the term any day now. But the very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP when applied to anyone - at least until that controversy abates. loupgarous (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Attribute. It's a BLP and must abide by strict and meticulous standards. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Closing admin request: Procedural close This RFC and the BLP/N, both created by Halo Jerk1, has been subject to canvassing by Halo Jerk1 both by the misuse of targeted pings (see multiple above complaints by those that were pinged), and by what appears a covert off-wiki direct email campaign diff diff by the creator of this RFC. Given the context this is a direct breach of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system on a subject where the GamerGate Arbcom discretionary sanctions apply. The much quoted (by Halo Jerk1) example BLP of Meghan Murphy, was subject to significant sockpuppet manipulation of both the article and the discussion of changes to it. The above BLP/N was also manipulated by the same sock puppet account, with the views of the sockpuppet being posted as evidence by Halo Jerk1, as well as the sock puppet account making direct posts. Given that it is impossible to assess how much both the canvassing and the sockpuppetry are affecting the perceived evidence for those giving their good faith opinions, or to what extent the canvassing of selected viewpoints may distort bias, this RFC should be closed as an unreliable consensus process. This does not stop the potential to proceed with other processes, or another RFC, or indeed to reach a consensus through discussion. Thanks -- (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    This RfC ain't the above discussion. There was one complaint about me pinging so many editors from a similar subject (#RfC: Category:Climate change deniers). I asked if it was okay, and I later got a reply that it wasn't. That discussion continued as usual. Also, folks, including you, have specifically rejected pinging as canvassing.[36]. I'm here now because I got an email to comment here explaining my email to Colin M, and I have a little time to respond. I didn't email Colin M to vote in this RfC. I emailed Colin M about the discussion higher up because he hadn't been on Wikipedia since August 1st, and I didn't know when he'd be back on. I didn't ask him to comment in favor of my viewpoint. I realize now that I should have left the message on his talk page for transparency. The email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, shouldn't be used to silence this RfC. I didn't make all those folks higher up say that we should attribute. All the folks higher up and in this RfC saying we should attribute ain't "an unreliable consensus." If anyone really wants to shut down this RfC because of my email to Colin M, which wasn't about this RfC, how is this gonna stop another RfC on this topic, or the folks who participated in the discussion higher up from being pinged to it? We'd still have a lot of the same folks participating. Let the folks speak, just like they spoke higher up. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Could you state clearly that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes? Thanks -- (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Updated feedback from Colin M, still calling the email canvassing. No statement has been made on how many people were canvassed by email, see WP:STEALTH. -- (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Drop the stick in your efforts to get this RfC shut down because it's not going your way. Colin M didn't call my email canvassing. What he did do was elucidate folks to the truth that I didn't email him about this RfC, and that it is "much preferrable" to notify people of a Wiki discussion like the one higher up publicly, on-wiki (via their user talk page, or a username ping). He said, "Using e-mail could be seen as a form of WP:STEALTH canvassing," not that I was canvassing. When he mentioned "the same principles apply," he was referring to how the email could look regardless. I didn't point him or anyone else to this RfC via email. I didn't tell him to vote a certain way. All my email said is that he might be interested in commenting in the thread higher up. It was that brief. I've said why I emailed him. He hadn't been on Wiki since August 1st. His contribs show he often takes days off from editing. I can take almost a month off and would welcome an email about a discussion I might be interested in. I've agreed that I should have left the message on his talk page. You want to know if I emailed anyone else. Did I say I did after Colin M's suggestion to list others if I emailed them? Then that's your answer. My very brief email to Colin M doesn't taint this RfC. Man, he hasn't even voted in this RfC! Your concern that I hadn't made a statement since my last response to you is very misplaced. My contribs, which I don't doubt you've looked at, show that I'm usually on Wiki at a certain time (night time, especially late night where I'm at, or very early in the morning). I ain't on Wiki twenty-four hours, seven days a week. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, the evidence shows you are misrepresenting the words of others and are now transparently dodging giving a direct answer to a direct question.
Colin M, in diff, stated "Still, I think the same principles apply, re canvassing." That is explicitly stating that your email was canvassing.
Please state unambiguously that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes. If you obfuscate further, or continue just replying by throwing the chaff of counter accusations in the air, then everyone can and should draw the conclusion that you have canvassed other people, per the definition agreed in WP:STEALTH. Thanks -- (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I also read "re Canvassing" the same way that Halo Jerk does, that private emails can look like canvassing. I think you've made your point, Fæ. Halo Jerk has owned up to their mistake and, given that other editors aren't accountable to you, your veiled threats and breaches in civility aren't going to make the procedural close you want more likely. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per BLP. However this is not the same as saying that the term mustn't be used. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close: this is the same discussion as the one above, and contributors to that discussion have not been pinged, and there's been canvassing in this discussion and both canvassing and sockpuppetry in the discussion above. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, Attribute Per my comments and critical concerns previously mentioned. Springee (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends If we have 10 or so reliable sources all saying, "Linehan is a TERF" it becomes something of a WP:BLUESKY issue. In that case we could say that he's "broadly characterized as a TERF" [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] rather than listing attributions. For more marginal and disputed cases though, we should attribute such statements with respect to WP:BLP requirements and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Admin request: if you are going to close this, please relocate to "Should Wikipedia state someone is a TERF or is transphobic in its voice, or should such a statement be given attribution?" the responses from editors that did not respond in that section to the similar-nature request for comments. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Overly broad We've had a number of discussions about "derogatory" labels(example) and editors have consistently rejected any sort of broad prohibition on terminology. If a term is consistently used by high quality reliable sources to describe something, then we should follow suit. If it isn't, then we can leave it out. If we want to talk about specific cases, we can have an RFC about specific cases. Nblund talk 14:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, attribute. RS clearly demonstrate dual usages, one descriptive, one politicized/loaded. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends + overly broad. Generally, TREF is probably too newfangled and jargony. However, if 80%+ of RS covering the subject (including, say, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) state in their lead sentence: "TERF Jane Doe spoke of her twitter experience...." - then sure - we should TERF away as we would with any other label when a preponderance of sources use it. I think this is a bit hypothetical (I don't see BBC TERFing people yet - but...). If we have a significant amount of reputable sources using TERF - we should attribute. And if its UNDUE (particularly for such a value laden label) - we exclude. To sum up - We should TERF someone on the same grounds we'd label someone a "radical Islamist", "white supremacist", "far-left", "far-right", etc. etc. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Depends but generally attribute unless mainstream. If this were a mainstream term being used in "BBC, NYC, WaPo, etc." as Icewhiz says it might be a different story, but as long as it is being sourced to what could be seen as essentially trans activists advocates, letting them dictate factually labeling someone in Wikipedia's voice as hating trans people (according to how TERF is currently worded anyway) is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. "Is widely characterized as a TERF" without explicitly attributing to anyone in particular may also be reasonable in some cases. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    "essentially trans activists", I think means "trans activists". Of the key writers quoted in the TERF article, Guardian journalist Viv Smythe is probably the most important source. She describes herself as part of "feminist cis women", not radical, not trans, and clearly not trans activist. Lumping all writers who might use the words "trans-exclusive radical feminist" in their books or articles as "essentially trans activists" and "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse" is not a characterization I recognize, nor a helpful one if the issue is improving the diversity of sources supporting the TERF article. -- (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Smythe is not a Guardian journalist: although she "works for the digital community team at Guardian Australia", she has only written one piece for the Guardian [37], an op-ed about her coining the term. In it, she says[38]

    I do find the renewed interest over the last few years in writing of mine from a decade ago disconcerting. The Terf acronym has long since left that particular discussion (and me) behind, and been weaponised at times by both those who advocate trans-inclusion in feminist/female spaces, and those who push for trans-exclusion from female-only spaces. I have no control over how others use a word (as it has now become) that came about simply to save typing a longer phrase out over and over again - a shorthand to describe one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognise trans women as sisters, unlike those of us who do.

    Cheers, gnu57 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction and choosing the quote. At least in Smythe's view, the word TERF has been used liberally by people with entirely opposing political agendas. Which is an expert opinion that clearly debunks the popular myth that this is all driven by "trans activists" (whatever they are). -- (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "trans advocates". It is far from a universal belief that "woman" does not mean "cis woman". So what we have is a plain matter of opinion. So we would be letting one side in a dispute, a matter of opinion, dictate that the other side be factually described as hating. This would be something like saying someone factually hates Rachel Dolezal only for believing she is not black, much more than something like making the more neutral observation that white supremacists hate other groups, which is not particularly contentious. If TERF were not worded to say that hatred is involved and it were clear that TERF were being used by both sides as a factual label, this would not be an issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a type of false equivalence. Most racists say they are not racist, or say they have "racial views", it's not a matter of opinion because of that, as racists are judged by their actions and statements about other races not what they say about themselves, we do not stop correctly and logically calling them racists. Separately it's not "a matter of opinion" with "sides" if some people believe that only cis women are women, that's the very definition of denying the existence or validity of trans women, and it meets all definitions of what a transphobic statement is. It seems very reasonable indeed in Wikipedia's voice to use the words "trans-exclusionary" rather than the full on "transphobe" to describe people who lobby for, or promote, such basic and offensive anti-trans statements. -- (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Like I have said, if TERF were sourced differently and at least said "transphobic" instead of "transphobic hatred" I would have much less of an issue with linking to it in a BLP as a fact about the person. Transphobic could be taken as in oleophobic - the question is if that is how it is taken I guess, and how "TERF" is taken vs. "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". It's at least in part an editorial decision whether this term is 1) encyclopedic and 2) more a slur than fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
And the trans women who say they ain't women or ain't female, and that the view on how a woman is defined is as ideological as any other ideological view?[39] This source is in the TERF page, but, unsurprisingly, this facet is missing from the page. To quote parts of the source,

To the mainstream trans rights movement, womanhood (or manhood) is a matter of self-perception; to radical feminists, it’s a material condition. Radical feminists believe women are a subordinate social class, oppressed due to their biology, and that there’s nothing innate about femininity. They think you can’t have a woman’s brain in a man’s body because there’s no such thing as a "woman’s brain."... At first, [a 42-year-old English accountant who goes by the pseudonym Helen Highwater] felt incensed by these radical feminists. But she also wanted to understand them, and so she began to engage with them online. She discovered "people who had a pretty good grasp of gender as an artificial social construct—the expectations of what females are supposed to be, the expectations of what males are supposed to be, and how much of that is socialized," she says. "What I started to find is that the women I was talking to actually made so much more sense than the trans people I was talking to."... Transitioning, [Miranda] Yardley tells me, improved her life immeasurably. It eliminated the gender dysphoria—the strong desire "to be treated as the other gender or to be rid of one’s sex characteristics," in the words of the DSM-5—that once plagued her. But it didn’t, she says, make her female. "I’m male, I own it," she tells me. Soon, Yardley and Highwater began dating. "We identify as a gay male couple," Yardley says. "We don’t identify as lesbians." Every communal movement has its apostates: people who reject the ideas associated with their identities. There are ultra-orthodox Jews who burn the Israeli flag, black people who oppose affirmative action, women—lots of women, actually—who are hostile to feminism. Yardley and Highwater are part of such a dissenting faction of trans people, one that's often described as "gender-critical."

Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe there would be WEIGHT issues involved in drawing out the implications of any such FRINGE view, particularly in the TERF article. On the other hand, an improved discussion of the alternative label "gender critical" would be helpful in my view, parallel for example to thus discussion of white separatism as a form of white supremacy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I knew ya were gonna invoke "FRINGE." However, trans women who are feminists and say they aren't women or aren't female should be briefly included in the TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics pages. WP:FRINGE don't mean fringe views can't be included. And if we call these trans women fringe on Wikipedia, we should source that. We can they aren't mainstream, like the Slate source basically tells us. Right now, I think readers come away from these pages thinking only non-trans women think this way. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute per what I already wrote above. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute I don't really know whether "TERF" is an epithet or a more dispassionate term. The very fact the term "TERF" is at the center of controversy and that some people object to begin called "TERFs" means we should be conservative and attribute in the text of a BLP. We shouldn't use it at all in lede paragraphs of BLPs. Also, I'd like to mention that I was innocently reading this page, and voted without being canvassed, recruited in any manner or a sockpuppet. I'll gladly see anyone who says differently in WP:ANI where they can either present evidence of this accusation or retract the charge. loupgarous (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. If the person or organization specifically states that they exclude trans-women (in some way) as women, then the description or categorization is applicable. If multiple reliable-sources state as much, with adequate evidence and unbiased reporting, then the description or categorization would appear to be applicable if cited and well-sourced in the article itself as a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The description or categorization should not be lightly applied and any disagreement should err on not using the description or categorization absent WP:CONSENSUS. Absent obviousness, just report any obviously relevant information, reliably sourced and worded without WP:UNDUE weight, without using any labels or categorization. Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute as a general rule, but I do agree with Softlavender immediately above - there may be instances where we don't need to, like where the person self-identifies (which should probably be attributed anyways.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute: Absent the broad consensus noted by Mendaliv, and self-identification (though that should also be attributed), attribution remains the best practice for value-laden terms and phrases. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Depends on sources I think Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources with its labels of living persons. Attribution, whether to a specific source or to a type of source generally, should be used unless a label is widespread in reliable sources. The term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" seems to be used less in the sources and more simply as a synonym for "transphobic". I agree with Softlavender's comment that a term needs to be a defining characteristic used in numerous reliable sources or relatively accepted by the individual being called it. Almost all terms that are "-exclusionary" or "-phobic" or "anti-" are labels that need to be carefully used based on the language used in reliable sources rather than interpretations of the language used in the sources. Existing Wikipedia policies seem to already cover this discussion, unless there is serious doubt as to whether "trans-exclusionary" is a type of transphobia. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute - As per, well, 90% of the people in this discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute all possible dysphemisms Not just this one, but all where the person does not self-attribute a label. I note the historical existence of Womyn-born womyn as a term for a subset hereof, where that label is self-applied. The existence of auch groups is not really in doubt. Collect (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Does anyone actually identify as a TERF? If not we shouldn't label someone as a TERF, we should instead say that x or y has described them as a TERF. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think I agree with you, based on the nature of the term, effectively a political slur. However we seem happy to use other terms that are generally considered political slurs, such as "far right" and "far left" based on third party opinion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Decide based on sources. If only one high-quality reliable source calls them a TERF, we should probably inline-cite that one; but if multiple high-quality, reliable non-opinion sources use the term for them in the article voice as if it's a neutral descriptor, inline-citing them all gets clunky (while inline-citing only some of them downplays what is clearly a major descriptor for their views), and also serves to downplay or express doubt for something is clearly relatively uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attribute unless the subject self-identifies as such. I happened to see this and was not canvassed but, yes, attribution seems best in line with our policies and to offer the most informative presentation to our readers. Haukur (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use the term unless the subject self-identifies that way. It's a contrived bit of jargon intended to denigrate, suggest the target of the characterization holds illegitimate ideas. Instead, if relevant to the article, the subject's views should be carefully described and properly attributed, as should appropriate example(s) of criticism of those views. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use the term for now The primary purpose of this term in common usage is to attack and belittle somebody. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving a platform to this type of language. Does any other respectable encyclopedia decribe its subjects as TERFs? Does mainstream academia use this language to categorise this type of activist? If it becomes a legitimate component of scholarly lexicon I would withdraw my opposition on those grounds. If it become impossible to give sufficient coverage to a subject without utilising the term then it should certainly by attributed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Comment firstly, just to point out that at present, the TERF description in the Meghan Murphy article is wholly unreffed and therefore fails WP:V. Acres of text are being expended above, while something a rookie editor would be expected to know is being ignored. Secondly the text is in the opening sentence of the lead, but not expanded in the body (where it would give some oppurtunity for the reader perhaps to learn what this neologism means, who has so accused Murphy, when they did so and what she has written to deserve it). And Yes. Attribute. or fix the linked article, such that it is an informative, neutral description of what these women believe and why - not the poorly sourced, thinly disguised, attack page it currently is. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, stick with existing guidelines; saying that we should always attribute would mean we have a higher standard for applying the term "TERF" than we do for applying the term "neo-Nazi", which IMO makes no sense. As others have pointed out, we call Richard Spencer a neo-Nazi quite clearly, without in-text attribution, and despite his own denial of the term. However, we do this only because the sourcing for it is overwhelming. I think this standard for applying controversial terms is good and makes sense. Applying a stricter standard for only certain terms would not only get into WP:BLUESKY issues, it would be a wiki-wide violation of WP:NPOV. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussionEdit

I was set on startin' an RfC about the TERF label at Talk:Meghan Murphy, but this is a wider issue, and even after most folks so far have said we should attribute, this revert[40] was made at the Meghan Murphy article with a declaration that "An RFC would be excessive." All of the discussion that is going to be had about this at that article's talk page has been had. The only thing left there now is stonewalling. I brought the issue here for opinions from the more general community. While we now know that Rhinocera was a sock, their language[41] was more appropriate. Masem explained why.[42] We've debated a lot higher up. It's now time to try a better form of achieving consensus on this. Hence the RfC. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, to the Meghan Murphy article, an editor wants to also add "transphobic hate speech" in Wikipedia's voice. diff and discussion. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Be advised that Meghan Murphy is currently fully edit protected. Investigation after full protection shows that a sock puppet has extensively manipulated discussion and content, while in apparent email contact with the BLP subject. Refer to Talk:Meghan_Murphy#Possible_COI_editing_or_meatpuppetry. As a poster child for this RFC, it appears a very bad exemplar.

Due to off-wiki interest, I suggest everyone is alert to the potential likely existence of other sock puppets, potential meat puppetry and gaming the system, including this BLP/N discussion. -- (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing by the pro-Wikivoice anti-attribution side has been going on here. The fact a sock appeared is irrelevant; no other socks have been identified. Hopefully these attempts to close the discussion are not being done to try to stem the flow of "attribute" !votes. -Crossroads- (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Compliant notifications are not canvassing. Please do not muddy the waters by pretending that there is any evidence of equivalent canvassing that "balances" the actions by Halo Jerk1, this has all been one-sided for those that are lobbying exclusively to the benefit of political radicals against transgender equality, like Meghan Murphy. Thanks so much. If you have received any canvassing emails, or have been in coordination with anyone off-wiki about these articles or these consensus processes, please make a full statement. Thanks -- (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Please note that LGBT has an L as well as a T. That ain't canvassing, Crossroads1, ans my notificarion was quite neutral. Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree, that is not canvassing, whether or not Crossroads favors what they consider to be the influence on this RfC. WikiProject Feminism could be notified too for that matter. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No idea why I was pinged in this. I couldn't care less about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It's my understanding that TERF is supposed to be the neutral term, which would mean that we wouldn't need to provide in-text attribution per WP:LABEL. Normally, it would be easy to dismiss efforts to treat TERF as a value-laden label, but it's not so easy to do so when the TERF article is worded in a way so as to make TERF itself a value-laden term. If TERF (in violation of WP:LABEL) continues to use transphobic without in-text attribution when defining the term, then it would make sense to also require labeling someone as a TERF to also require in-text attribution. I don't like this as a solution, because it entrenches what I believe to be unencyclopedic wording in the TERF article and for which I am still attempting to address through dispute resolution. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"It's my understanding that TERF is supposed to be the neutral term". I don't know who has been saying that "TERF" is a neutral term, and I don't know what selected sources are used to support that allegation, but it is certainly not a "neutral term" for many. There are those who consider it a slur and a derogatory language, as also found here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. (there's more, but I think these are enough). Pyxis Solitary yak 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have receipts, but the supposed "neutral" alternative is "gender critical feminist" and, if my own understanding and the TERF article are any guides, that term doesn't seem to pass WP:COMMONNAME muster. This relates to something said earlier, that Most racists say they are not racist, or say they have "racial views" and that we do not stop correctly and logically calling them racists. Maybe they can elaborate a little more on that, but it seems like at Wikipedia that we actually do stop calling them racists here at Wikipedia, per WP:LABEL. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If someone has a comparative case with a consensus about how we write about notable racists, that would be a useful comparison to link to here. Happy to be corrected, I do not follow those exact topics. -- (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you asking for the discussion behind that component of WP:LABEL? Or are you asking about specific high-profile racists? For the latter, just think of a racist and see if their Wikipedia page uses the term "racist" without attribution. David Duke, Strom Thurmond, and Donald Trump all avoid using the term "racist" without attribution. I'm sure you can think of others to check. I wouldn't know where to check for the former. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It's asking for an exemplar like "racist", if a consensus process can be referenced and would be useful to consider, because we might find a better way of doing this.
I am aware of the Trump article changing this week, so the weasley "Racial views" as a subtitle became the factual and more meaningful "Appeals to racism and xenophobia". It's interesting, but there was not an especially smart process behind that discussion. -- (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see. You're looking more for discussions behind these choices that can help us here. I'm not sure where to find those without doing a lot of digging. Maybe someone else can point us in the right direction. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ƶ§œš¹ that our own article TERF complicates the issue by defining "TERF" in terms whose neutrality is disputed. There's common sense evidence the term is capable of being interpreted pejoratively, and should be attributed in BLPs, generally. Our article Meghan Murphy is complicated by the subject's own public statements regarding trans women. Even so, WP:BLP says we ought to proceed conservatively and not lend wikivoice to either side in the debate over whether Meghan Murphy is indeed "trans-phobic", as our article TERF defines the term. Plenty of time after the dust clears and a broad spectrum of reliable secondary sources use the term to do that.
Also plenty of room to present both sides (of whether Meghan Murphy's a transphobe or merely excluding them from the definition of "feminist" as she seems to do with men) below the lede paragraph.
Not saying anything contentious in wikivoice about the subject of a BLP doesn't hurt anyone. I'm surprised there's even discussion about that here. --loupgarous (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There's also the trans women who say they ain't women or ain't female, and that the view on how a woman is defined is as ideological as any other ideological view.[43] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Fringers gonna FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The source does let us know that these trans women aren't mainstream, but, going by what I said higher up, WP:FRINGE don't mean fringe views can't be included. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment on Raymond I agree with others who think that the sourcing for Murphy is weak, but I think there are other cases where "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is a consistent description in the sources. Here are some examples of descriptions of Janice Raymond's work that appear in high quality sources:
  • Sally Hines (Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Feminism): what has recently become to be known as a 'TERF' (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) perspective is evident in the much cited 1979 book by Janice Raymond.."
  • Rachel McKinnon(Philosophy and Phenomenological Research) TERFs such as Janice Raymond equate trans women’s very existence with rape..."
  • Cameron Awkard-Rich (Signs): Thus, the amenability of Raymond’s transexclusionary radical feminist (TERF) stance to government policy contributed to a decades-long legal exclusion of trans health care from public insurance
  • Shannon Weber (Journal of Lesbian Studies) Raymond’s writings, while remaining the most well-known feminist set of arguments against the inclusion of trans women in feminist movements, have been joined by the work of a chorus of other anti-transgender feminists known as TERFs, or “trans-exclusionary radical feminists
  • Columbia Journalism Review: But Goldberg ignores the legacy of harm Raymond and other trans-exclusionary feminists have done to trans women, which no doubt informs angry comments on Tumblr
As I've mentioned before, I don't think the term "TERF" is helpful because it's jargon. But Raymond is a radical feminist who is distinguished primarily by her belief that trans women should be excluded from the feminist movement/from womanhood generally. The precise wording of that description is up for debate, but calling her a "radical feminist" (full stop) is no more supported by the sources than calling her a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Nblund talk 17:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thats good sourcing, but I would point out couple things. McKinnon as source can be easily source of dispute given the publicized fight regarding these issues with eg Martina Navratilova among others. CJR carefully within wording avoids the labels as such, rather explores the term and observes it from both sides. Though I can see why it could be used as a source. Hines, Rich and Weber sources seems very solid and as such as long as WP:UNDUE doesnt appear, or MOS:LEADNO, the term within article seems quite well sourced without any dispute. At that point I guess we roll back on BLP - is TERF applicable source if within RS? In my opinion, unless consensus differs, yes. Or is it something that should be applied only when its self-descriptory? I generally tend to no on these terms. If the later should be applied, concurrent discussion about merger of Radical feminism with TERF should be opened and arguments should be made there as these feminists who have that label generally see themselves as subsection of former. That would also possible solve this issue by LEAD desciption with RadFem, but redirect to TERF subsection. Just an idea, tho. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Rachel McKinnon, a trans woman who is embroiled in what has become known as the TERF wars, and in the debate over trans women competing in women's sports,[44] is hardly impartial. WP:BIASED tells us that sources can be biased and still be used, but, man, what a biased source she is. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't do too much digging on the quality of the journal, but it's a peer reviewed publication from a noted scholar, and I definitely don't think we're in a position to disqualify sources just because they're written by trans people. Eliminating scholars who are critical of trans exclusionary feminism seems like it would eliminate pretty much every scholar who has commented by virtue of the fact that the overwhelming majority of feminist academics see Raymond's work as extreme and dated (at best). Nblund talk 04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I ain't saying that the views of trans people should be discounted. I'm not like some who try to disqualify sources because of their personal POV. Like EllsworthSK, I'm just saying that she's been embroiled in what has become known as the TERF wars, and in the debate over trans women competing in women's sports, and is far from impartial. There's no need to point me to WP:BIASED since I pointed it out myself. As for "the overwhelming majority of feminist academics see Raymond's work as extreme and dated (at best)," I'd rather see a source explicitly say that. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not following this thread particularly closely, so I have no idea who the "some people" you're referencing are, but I suspect it doesn't really matter for this discussion. Kathleen Stock (one of McKinnon's critics) says: "that in gender studies, queer theory and mainstream feminist philosophy, “the position that trans women are literally women is now an article of faith, disagreement with which is seen as a sign of moral degeneracy, rather than a matter over which reasonable people with different theories can disagree.". I think she's basically right, and I don't see anything to indicate that Raymond's views are taken particularly seriously today. Nblund talk 14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You agree with her on what? Where she says "rather than a matter over which reasonable people with different theories can disagree"? Considering the political nature of these topics, and folks I see disagreeing with one another (including trans folks disagreeing with other trans folks), I'm not taking anyone's word for it on Raymond or anyone else. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with her that the claims like "trans women are actually just men" (which is essentially Raymond's view) is considered dated and offensive in the fields that Raymond's work is addressed toward (academic feminism, gender studies, etc.) Nblund talk 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: an RfC to replace the Meghan Murphy biography as a "non controversial stub" has been requested: RfC to rebuild the Meghan Murphy biography. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ugh! This "discussion" has become such a trainwreck that I can't even see the best place to add my comment among the mangled wreckage so I'll just put it here at the bottom and add to the verbiage.
    There is nothing special about these terms. The usual rules for BLPs, and articles in general, should apply. All article content needs to be validly referenced. We should take care not to refer to anybody as a transphobe or a TERF without valid referencing but we should not be afraid to refer to them as such when the references support it! Sure, they won't like it, but then the white supremacists don't like being referred to as "white supremacists" and will offer a range of euphemistic alternative terms they would prefer. So long as the references support what we say, this is simply not a consideration for us.
    There are several analogous situations to guide us: We should treat "transphobe"/"transphobic" the same way we treat "homophobe"/"homophobic" and "Islamophobe"/"Islamophobic". "TERF" is a little more problematic. One insight I would like to offer (and I apologise if this is already buried somewhere in the TL;DR above) is that "TERF" is a term with its meaning in limbo. Sometimes it literally means what the acronym implies (i.e. a radical feminist who is transphobic) and other times it is simply used as a synonym for "transphobe" without really meaning to suggest that the subject is any sort of feminist. This has come about partially due to natural evolution of language but mostly because a lot of transphobes use insincere feminist sounding rhetoric to confuse the issue and mask the real basis for their transphobia. For this reason I suggest that we should prefer the terms "transphobe"/"transphobic" where that is all we mean to say and only use "trans exclusionary radical feminist" (set out in full) where we have references to show that the subject's transphobia coincides with a general radical feminist standpoint, not purely on trans issues, i.e that we need to show references for both "trans exclusionary" and "radical feminist" separately.
    We should also take care not to conflate "TERF" with "radical feminist" in general. That would be inaccurate and unfair on the radical feminists who are not TERFs. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Begging the question of whether we should use "TERF" at all. Using it without attribution is certainly not a good idea, but it should not be used to categorize at all, and should only ever be used in quote, reported speech or something very close thereto.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC).

Tulsi Gabbard againEdit

Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is in the middle of a huge knock down drag out fight. Depending on who you believe there are serious attempts to either demonize Gabbard or to whitewash the article (I will leave to to the reader to decide which).

Before I go to ANI or AE, I would like to invite any editors who are interested in having a NPOV article to jump in and fix any POV problems (from either side of the current disputes) they see. If you are more interested in rooting for Team Read or Team Blue (or one particular player on Team Blue) than NPOV, please stay away. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice that four of the active editors have consistently added negative information to this article, while removing negative information in articles about Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats. I think it may be time to take this to AE. TFD (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. OK. I will start gathering diffs and putting together a timeline. I hate politics. Do you think that if we asked them really nicely and apologized for that whole revolutionary war thing the UK would take us back? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You can always use the strategy I did: marry a Canadian. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I was just reading Today We Celebrate the Time Canada Burned Down the White House. Any chance we can get them to do it again? (Note: That was NOT me rooting for Team Blue. I have a low opinion of both major US political parties. If I were given the choice, I would like to see a Green or Libertarian president -- not because I think it would be an improvement but just so we can be disappointed by someone new.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Canada didn't burn down the White House, it was the Russians. It's in the Mueller report. TFD (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I read in on InfoWars so it must be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon, yes, sure, welcome home, but you'll have to learn how to make tea - Boiling water, not cold or merely hot, freshwater not salt, teapot quantities not a whole harbour. & it is the right to bare arms not to bear arms. ϢereSpielChequers 21:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
We seriously need to apply NOT#NEWS to politician pages. As an encyclopedia, we should not be trying to document every single one of their views, and certainly not in the real-time nature of typical news reporting. See what their legacy turns out to be and then add the sourcing that supports their views from that legacy. Don't try to second guess importance. --Masem (t) 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans has taken over ownership of the article in the last months. (From 10% to 18% according to wikiwho). I'm not sure that SS agrees with you that this is an encyclopedia and not an election guide / political newspaper. This question should be put to them at ArbCom. The civility pillar should be enforced: the fact that SS has been allowed to denigrate my contributions & cast aspersions on me for years speaks volumes about Wikipedia's broken processes and misplaced priorities. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Please present a case at WP:AE with diffs showing the behavior before making claims like "...has been allowed to denigrate my contributions & cast aspersions on me for years speaks volumes about Wikipedia's broken processes and misplaced priorities..." If you have a case (I haven't examined the evidence for myself) and you don't file a report at ANI or AE, then you have only yourself to blame and shouldn't be blaming Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to draw the community's attention to the problem, at WP:AN, WP:ANI. People clearly recognize there is truth in what I've said, but it's always crickets all the way down... ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
May I please have a list of the times you tried to draw the community's attention to the problem AN or ANI, with links to the archives? I am preparing a case to put before Arbcom, but I have not yet been convinced that the problem I need to present to Arbcom is the problem you describe above. Not trying to give you a hard time her, but I really need to see these crickets for myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, Sashi tried at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008 #Snooganssnoogans: copyright violations and civility violations and I tried in the same thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#More diffs (warning: prepare a stiff drink before you read that brawl of a thread). See also the pending WP:AN#Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure (and the underlying RfC, and the battle that preceded it). My personal introduction to this was back in February at Talk:2018 United States elections. I wouldn't normally bring up stuff that old, but hey, Snoog just posted diffs from February as part of his ANEW report against Sashi at WP:ANEW#User:SashiRolls reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: ). Search for Snoog's name at ANEW archives and you'll find a gazillion threads that all end in no action, or page protection, and the occasional boomerang. Honestly, I think ANI or AE will be a complete waste of time. Admin (writ large) either don't seem to think there is a problem or aren't interested in trying to solve it (I can't blame them; they're volunteers). I'm not quite sure if Arbcom will be any better, particularly with everything they have on their plate now (I guess we'll see how the Polish Jews case comes out, because I see these as very similar issues). I think there is a larger problem than one or two editors, though, and it's exactly what Masem points out above: the US politics area has turned into a political newspaper, with editors fighting to stick in the latest quotes from second-rate media (e.g., the Daily Beast). Every article on US presidential candidates, for example, are complete junk, filled with, "In August 2019, so-and-so said such-and-such," or "This newspaper wrote that so-and-so is this-and-that", etc. etc. It needs a major overhaul and a reintroduction to NOTNEWS. I think I am among many editors who have given up on editing in that topic area. Levivich 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's pitiful enough, to know that corporate news media & politicians are trying to destroy the progressives in the Democratic prez nomination race. That's happening on Wikipedia? very sad indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
During the last presidential election cycle, there were about 12 experienced editors who consistently added negative material to articles about Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, while removing negative information about Hillary Clinton. Since then they have continued to add negative information to articles about Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, while defending mainstream Democratic candidates such as Kamala Harris. Some of these editors previously were involved in GMO related articles, removing negative information about GMOs and adding negative information about their opponents. Two of these editors were involved in an off-wiki group that coordinated editing of articles about Eastern European-related subjects, adding negative information to articles about Russia and removing negative information about Eastern European nationalists. Part of their strategy was to get opposing editors banned. The scheme was exposed by Wikileaks and resulted in arbitration action. While I have no direct evidence that this is continuing today, I think this is something that Arbcom should look into, particularly as many of these same editors have claimed that Russian trolls are trying to manipulate Wikipedia content. TFD (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything I personally can do to help this situation? I don't see my jumping in to the articles and adding one more warrior to the battlefield as being constructive. I could file a case at ANI. AE or Arbcom, but it looks like others have tried that and it didn't resolve the problem. Is this intractable? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't followed this article particularly closely, but I someone needs to be enforcing a "no airing of grievances until Festivus" rule to keep every single content dispute from turning in to a referendum on editorial conduct. I know folks are frustrated, but I've found it really difficult to wade through the sniping in order to offer input on the core content issues - which are often fairly mild. I also think a lot of the primary sourcing could be excised - despite the constant talk page conflict, I think the amount of just plain useless content is probably the thing that is most problematic with the actual article. Nblund talk 15:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Guy Macon: @The Four Deuces: Do you think the situation could be improved with a couple of topic bans? I've observed several disputes at the Gabbard article and I've noticed the same problem. Some of my thoughts are outlined here. I would be interested in your perspective. As things stand it wouldn't take much to convince me to issue topic bans for two users whose usernames start and end with the letter "S". ~Awilley (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that topic bans until a week after US election day would be an excellent solution. I will not speculate on who should be topic banned before I have examined the evidence myself, but I do see one or more likely candidates for a topic ban ending a week after the election. I do most of my editing on engineering topics, where we traditionally put up with "difficult people" because we have a shortage of editors with enough knowledge to make useful edits to topics like Power Factor, Hall effect. Cockcroft–Walton generator or Austin transformer. The pages of US presidential hopefuls are just the opposite: pretty much everyone understands the topic, we have a large pool of good editors willing to make good edits to the pages, but a few "difficult people" are driving the good editors away.
Could we have you or another uninvolved administrator go though the pages for all of the current US presidential hopefuls and at the very least give the obvious "Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue" editors warnings and DS alerts?
I would like us to look at the history of the pages for all of the candidates listed at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries and 2020 Green Party presidential primaries, excluding those with over 10% in the polls (Trump, Biden, etc. already have plenty of admin attention to their pages). Would it be helpful for me and perhaps a couple of other uninvolved editors to do a first sort and identify potential problem editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I agree that we have many "good editors" on the AmPol articles. What we do have are a lot of editors that edit little other than this arena of articles and many are hell bent to twist the balance one way or the other via the use of reliable sources (NOTNEWS). I would suggest that if no TBs are issued, this be done only if an editor can "walk away" from that arena for at least a guaranteed period as I just did on one article in particular. If editors can't do that, and evidence shows they are editing in a combative, overly bold, uncompromising and partisan manner, then TBs are probably best. Especially true if they have had multiple warnings/previous penalties for similar issues in similar arenas.--MONGO (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It's unclear to me why Guy Macon's (who wants the Gabbard page to prioritize her surfing[45] over her comments and actions on Assad and Syria despite the latter being her main claim to notability prior to her presidential run) and TFD's (who holds a clear POV on Gabbard and is in this very thread spitballing conspiracies that those who brush up against him in content disputes do so because they are part of a secret cabal) opinions are consulted here. Both of these editors have strong POVs on the subject in question (and TFD has been involved in countless content disputes with me), which informs the grievances that they express. Both don't like that the Gabbard page sticks to RS coverage of her rather than the kind of content that they personally like, and both have a distrust of media RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It's also unclear to me why I'm being considered for a ban over my editing on the Gabbard page. All the content that I add exclusively adheres to RS coverage, and I have resolved all of my disputes on the page through the appropriate channels, often painstakingly so. I challenge you to find anyone who has wasted more time trying to get uncontroversial RS text included on a page than I have on the Gabbard page. I literally had to take every single edit I made in a large edit and resolve it bit by bit on the talk page because one editor vetoed it all indiscriminately (and after wasting weeks on this, most of the content of course ended up in the article). The content is neither positive nor negative: I simply stick to what RS report. This can be her uncontroversial positions on economic matters and the environment, as well as her controversial positions on Syria and Narendra Modi. I have added content that highlights her fringe positions on Assad's use of chemical weapons, as well as immediately adding content that made her position less fringe when such content became available.[46] Every content dispute of mine has been taken to the talk page, and if there was no resolution in these content disputes, I took them to RfCs. The page is so dysfunctional that even though the RfCs concluded in favor of my preferred edits, I was prevented from implementing my edits and I refrained from edit-warring the RfC conclusions in. All the content removals I have done have been based on policy, and would be uncontroversial on any other article except this one, mostly because of pushback from one editor. I have also repeatedly called for administrative attention to the page and encouraged community-wide input on disputes on the page. I have gone above and beyond to comply with Wikipedia policy and resolve content disputes on the page. My editing on the article has been a clear net positive. It would be an egregious case of false balance to ban me from the page because I happen to make edits to the article that the editor responsible for the dysfunction of the page disagrees with. As far as I can tell, the only way to avoid this ban would have been to simply abandon the page, let another editor make edits that I believed violated Wikipedia policy, and refrain from adding RS content of my own and argue for it on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is OK to respectfully disagree with an editor who makes a good-faith suggestion that maybe, just maybe, a page should be 3% human-interest and 97% political wonkery instead of 100% political wonkery, but making multiple snarky comments about that disagreement as if the other editor did something wrong or stupid is is not OK. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would not have commented on you and your history on the page if your advice was not actively sought after as some kind of neutral observer. It's not an attack on you and your capabilities. If a topic ban is being considered on myself on the advice of two editors who have expressed concerns about the editing on a particular topic, it's entirely valid for me to make clear that the editors in question have a history on that topic, hold drastically different opinions than myself on how RS should be treated, and do not hold neutral POVs on the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Except that you being topic banned is NOT being considered on my advice. You just made that part up. What I said was "I will not speculate on who should be topic banned before I have examined the evidence myself, but I do see one or more likely candidates for a topic ban ending a week after the election." I never included or excluded you as a candidate for a topic ban, nor will I until I take the time to examine the evidence for myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You were asked to weigh in on whether I should be topic banned, as if you were a neutral observer, when you are not a neutral observer. That's all I'm saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You accuse me of having a bias for Gabbard, but if you look at my record, I have also argued for the exclusion of smears against Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump and other candidates. And you and I have been in 100% agreement in the case of smears against Clinton, Warren and Harris, because you have never agreed to adding any negative information about them, while all of your efforts on Gabbard have been to add negative information. Incidentally, Gabbard did not come to public awareness with her visit to Syria but when she quit the DNC and endorsed Sanders. And that is why you and the other editors who supported the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 take an interest in this article in my opinion.

I was asked what action should be taken. Snoogassnoogans and about a dozen other editors began editing in the last presidential cycle and have consistently edited articles in favor of some candidates and against others and have applied content policy and guidelines differently depending on which candidates they favored. That is certainly not in the best interests of the project. ANI is inadequate to deal with it, due to its complexity. This comes under tendentious editing. There is of course bad faith editing on the other sides, but seems to be controllable. I would suggest therefore an ARBCOM case, although it is a lengthy and involved process. I had actually thought that the pro-Clinton editors would have gone on to other pursuits following the 2016 election, but they haven't.

TFD (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(1) I completely reject the idea of negative/positive/neutral content. (2) However, if edits can be construed as negative, here is a partial list (I cannot sift through thousands of edits) of some edits that you would very likely consider to be negative to various other Democratic 2020 candidates: Kamala Harris[47] (literally substantiating a Tulsi Gabbard criticism of Harris), Cory Booker[48], Kirsten Gillibrand[49] , Joe Biden[50][51][52] Bernie Sanders[53], John Delaney[54], Marianne Williamson[55][56]. As for the Elizabeth Warren page, I have only edited content related to her Native-American heritage, with one exception: Noting that she was a Republican until the mid-90s.[57] I know he's not currently a candidate, but Michael Bloomberg was considered a very likely Democratic candidate at the start of the year when these edits were made.[58][59] Richard Ojeda was a candidate but has now withdrawn[60] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
In the first Biden edit you changed that according to The New York Times the crime biil made Biden "loathed on the left" and threated his 2020 campaign to "over time" the bill became controversial and Biden said he made a mistake.[61] Essentially you toned down the criticism. It was only after the crine bill that people saw its problems and Biden expressed regret for its unforeseen consequences. In fact the legislative approach had been pioneered with the Rockefeller Drug Laws of 1973 and the three-strikes laws in various states. A number of your edits follow that pattern: any negative information is balanced by spin. Yes Harris opposed cash bail, but only for gun related offenses because low bail costs attracted them to San Francisso.[62] You leave out that bail remained high for non-violent crimes, and is now leading the fight to end cash bail. No mention for example that bail for drinking under the age of 21 was set at $5,000 and welfare fraud under $400 at $3,000.[63] BTW, I assume you probably dislike Sanders also, but his article has attracted very little hostility
I am not saying btw that any of the edits you listed were wrong, just that they are presenting information that was already in the article or would be included in the best possible light.
TFD (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
What a surprise. Adding flip-flops to the pages of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are suddenly attempts to portray them in a better light! Being pro-cash bail is suddenly something that's going to be good for a Democratic candidate in the 2020 primaries! Saying "criminals flock to San Francisco to exploit its low bail policies" is a totally rational assessment of how criminals think that will definitely appeal to 2020 Democratic voters! It's almost as if the notion of negative/positive/neutral content is arbitrary BS, and whatever edit I make (I am after all part of a secret cabal of a dozen editors who are conspiring to wreak havoc on Hillary's enemies, in your view) must be negative/positive if they are on whatever arbitrary list of anti-Hillary/pro-Hillary Dems that you have created. And for what its worth, I posted three edits regarding Biden, and the edit that you claim toned down criticisms of Biden actually removed BLP violations because the source does not say Biden was "loathed by the left" and it does not say his candidacy was threatened (I should of course have kept these BLP vios to prove my anti-Biden bona fides) while it added his flip-flop. And what better evidence of my work for the Kamala Harris campaign than a failure to add a court document hosted on web.archive.org that doesn't mention Harris at all... seriously? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe until the day after inauguration day. Levivich 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One thing worth observing at BLP/N, I think, is that wikipedia contributors are living people. As for the rest, it should really be at ArbCom with more formalized statements & diffs. In my view, given the discussion of Awilley's actions in the area (T Ballioni, El C, among others, cf. their talk page), I would expect them to be a party. But we should give them time to get settled, as mentioned above, Wikipedians are people too. The evidence will show that the AE mass-spinning sanction Snoog has never -- to my knowledge -- appealed was given for a reason. The last article I wrote about en.wp is almost a year old now. At that time Snoog was more of a tweeter fan as you'll see if you read the first paragraph and follow the links provided. At the time the Daily Beast turned up 5142 times in an insource:"thedailybeast.com" search. As of this writing there were 7457 instances of the same Daily. That's 2315 in about a year, or roughly 6 references added a day. Much more impressive is the rise of twitter: 78,026 today, 35,735 a year ago. That elephant has more than doubled in size! Guy & HillBillyHoliday will probably be sad to note that the number of references to the Daily Mail has also grown during the same period. (27,336 --> 31,919) Here's a direct link to the research on frequency of source usage back in Aug 2018 for those who wish to see how their favorite rag has been piling up against the others in the last year! ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a journalist, Helen Buyniski, who appeared on Chris Hedges' "On Contact: Wikipedia - A Tool of the Ruling Elite" on RT. In the show, she said there was bias in editing articles about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. She provides further discussion in "Wikipedia: the Modern Delphic Oracle" on the Progressive Radio Network in which she names Snooganssnoogans and several other editors as working to inject bias into these articles. In another article, "Wikipedia: J’accuse," she mentions the problems SashiRolls encountered when they tried to add information about the use of Clinton Foundation money following the Haitian earthquake. Now I realize this is alternative media, however I think it would be useful for the project to determine the accuracy of these allegations one way or the other. TFD (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing screams "here's a credible person with thoughtful commentary" more than someone who appears on "False Flag Weekly", hosted by a 9/11 Truther and Holocaust denier, and writes columns for the renowned conspiracy website Centre for Research on Globalization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't matter who wrote it if the charges are true. I am not prepared to pass judgement (I need to see diffs and check them out for myself) but I think that there is enough here for an Arbcom case. If there is nothing to the accusations, Arbcom will clear Snooganssnoogans' name.
Here is the link: Wikipedia: the Modern Delphic Oracle on the Progressive Radio Network
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realize that she co-hosted that show and note she that she did not do so when she appeared on RT or wrote her articles. Still, I think there is enough for ARBCOM to look into this. TFD (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Are we sure this is an Arbcom-level case? This one discussion would not be sufficient for what Arbcom would usually consider the community's failure to solve the problem first. --Masem (t) 22:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
TFD,Guy Macon: beyond just rattling off the names of a half dozen experienced editors, what evidence does this provide for that charge? The author seems to be pretty thoroughly bonkers. Undisclosed paid editing for a political campaign would probably be illegal, it would definitely be a huge violation of the rules, and the article you've linked to seems wayyyy off in tin foil hat territory. Did I miss some evidence somewhere? That really seems like something you should strike out and drop. Nblund talk 22:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity for the kind of mindset that spitballs that I‘m part of a secret cabal of Wikipedia editors and whose advice is sought after on whether to ban me, I decided to check out this "journalist" that TFD brought to the table. I half-listened to her on "False Flag Radio" (hosted by a Holocaust-denying 9/11 Truther) where she delineates her views on Wikipedia and the great conspiracy that I myself is apparently a part of[64] (MjolnirPants, Neutrality, BullRangifer and Volunteer_Marek are also part of this conspiracy per this woman):
  1. 1:40 - The interview starts out with Helen complaining that the Wiki page for the 9/11 Truth movement says that 9/11 Truthers are conspiracy theorists. She suggests that the reason for this is that Wikipedia is getting money (no mention of who is paying and why they care what the 9/11 Truther page looks like).
  2. 5:40 – Laughing it up about how Wikipedia editors have "Zionist Aspergers". Previously in the interview, they say only individuals who are paid or individuals with Aspergers put a lot of time into editing Wikipedia.
  3. 11:00 – Wikipedia admins are following the orders of Jimmy Wales, a Randian who is working for the corporate overlords. Wales‘s motivations are to be able to go to Davos every year, so he orders the admins to make sure the Wikipedia pages look a certain way.
  4. 15:20 – Moaning about how the Wikipedia page for Gary Null mentions that he is a HIV/AIDS denier, and that he encourages HIV-positive individuals to use dietary supplements rather than antiretroviral medication. They laud this Null figure at several points in the interview.
  5. 20:00 – Wales is described as some kind of hack who had no skills and just took credit for Wikipedia, which was created by someone way smarter
  6. 21:30 – There‘s a lot of money exchanging hands between Wikipedia and Google, and Wales is looking to profit on running ads
  7. 35:00 – I stopped listening. There's literally nothing interesting that this woman has to say, unless you want to do a drinking game over how many times "basement dweller" (or synonym) is said in this hour-long audio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Looney tunes... -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe the thing to do is to just start an evidence gathering page, collect the diffs, see what/who is there, and then decide whether to take it to RFAR or ANI or somewhere else or nowhere. One option, if the evidence page shows problematic editing from one or more editors, is to bring that to the attention of those editors and see if a voluntary resolution can be negotiated, before taking it to any noticeboard. Levivich 23:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Helen did a lot of digging around off-wiki for Gary Null, her printed work is quite well referenced. She's consistently stretched a few things I've said beyond what I have ever claimed to know, though. For example, I have no idea when Minassian Media was first hired and have never claimed that they were directly related to any house POV folks there might be out there. I also can't claim to know they weren't, so I'm not that annoyed with her. One thing I am sure of is that the Clinton Foundation page was started by User:Clinton Foundation, which wasn't blocked until 16 months after it created the entry. Ah back when things were so much simpler! Now some people edit over 15 hour stretches, day after day, sometimes taking 2 or 3 hours of breaks in the day, sometimes not, for months on end. I often think it "must be nice" not to have to do a day job, but I've also understood that it may also be tough not having a day job to do and feeling obliged to edit Wikipedia instead. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Nblund, since Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) in 2015 there have been dozens of sanctions and no end in sight. The major editors in these articles have been parties to numerous ANI and AE requests, either brought by them or against them. Meanwhile, there are ongoing content disputes in articles about controversial national figures (which includes all major presidential candidates) with massive amounts of discussion. TFD (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but how do you go from there to endorsing an article that insinuates that multiple editors are part of some kind of vast left wing conspiracy involving the Clinton foundation? Repeated tendentiousness is grounds for an ARBCOM case, but this article just looks like someone pulling a Breitbart and using "alternative media" to smear editors off-wiki. Anyone can do this. And it undermines any legitimate gripes you might have.
Do you have any evidence for this at all other than just bias? If not, why not just apply Occam's Razor and ask whether the simpler explanation (contentious topic area and strong feelings) explains what you're pointing to? Nblund talk 15:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I would argue it would be extremely difficult to put down AP2 sanctions on anyone being named here. There are some behavior flareups from the back-and-forth, and plenty of 1RR notifications , but I mean, talking the long term editing patterns of those named is well beyond the type of scope that AE on AP2 would be suited for. Nor would I isolate the situation to just those editors named. It is a wiki-wide problem, maybe with a few editors in the spotlight because of their editing on high-profile articles like this one, but it goes well beyond these editors. Hence, again, Arbcom or AE is just not appropriate right now. --Masem (t) 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand why Helen & TFD both want to draw attention to the BCP (biography of corporate person) protection on the Clinton Foundation entry. The relevant discussion is here and here. I would pay particular attention to SavvyJack's comments as they have done a good bit of work on entries about Haiti on en.wp. Related material can be found in particular here and here. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not know whether there is off-wiki cooperation. I do know that there are by my count 17 editors who extensively edit or have edited these articles and seem to mitigate criticism of some subjects including Hillary Clinton, while adding criticism to subjects including Donald Trump, Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard. Of these editors, two had previously cooperated off Wiki in articles about Eastern Europe, one has been blocked as a sock, one has been blocked for unrelated reasons, and four others appear on the ARBCOM enforcement log. When a successful AE was brought against Snooganssnoogans, six of these editors (including one not included above) defended his editing. They made up half of the editors responding.[65] Furthermore, I don't know how often SashiRolls has been brought to AE or ANI, but it appears to be entirely in disputes with this same group of editors. (I haven't read through them all so could be wrong.) TFD (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not know whether there is off-wiki cooperation. Then stop bringing it up. Speaking as someone who is at least halfway sympathetic to some of your complaints here: this is not helpful. Nblund talk 18:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was replying to your question. TFD (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a note I have just noticed that SashiRolls has been blocked. I have doubts about the wisdom of blocking a participant in this discussion while it is still ongoing. (I do not wish to get involved in the substance of this discussion, this is just a heads-up about a potential problem.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocking only one editor when there are arguably a couple “misbehaving” is always shameful. Awilley’s crusade against SR is starting to look like harassment, per the updated T&S / Arb standards. Maybe an Arb Iban between those two is necessary here? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, she is a controversial politician. That's OK. Actually, I would strongly agree with her about cutting the military expenses. Yes, there are content disputes. That's OK. Do not bring this thing to WP:AE or Arbcom because this is going to be an enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, MVBW, why would this be more of a waste of time than the current Eastern Europe case (Holocaust in Poland) or previous cases like the one surrounding the Gamergate controversy? I've noticed that at least one of the very active actors in the AP area has most frequently edited Gamergate controversy and its accompanying talk page. Having never contributed to either of these conflicts, I wonder what it might be that brings people to AP from those areas? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages relating to "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons"Edit

The following talk pages contain collapsed discussions about hearsay material, consisting of serious criminal claims about a non-notable living person. These claims are not part of any police investigation, nor have these allegations been verified in any other credible way, apart from being on an inflammatory YouTube video, being posted on Facebook, being posted on a conspiracy theory website with no editorial policy, and being reposted on social media, mostly alongside blatantly transphobic abuse. In every instance I have looked at, the material may well be hoaxes, tampered with images, or some form of hearsay "embellishment" of events and the living person targeted with these allegations is reported to have denied any knowledge of them. Both discussions were either started or inflamed by comments from an account which was later revealed as a sockpuppet account from an indefinitely blocked user with a history of "disrupting" transgender related topics.

I request that an administrator deletes these collapsed sections as a violation of BLP (WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM) and provide a warning within those discussions that no unproven serious allegations about any living person can be reposted or linked to on Wikipedia talk pages, and any such unverified material should be immediately removed.

If people wish to discuss this request, please avoid unnecessarily repeating the non-notable person's full legal name, or repeating the hearsay, or reposting the problematic links.

Note that one of these pages has a current AfD based on lack of notability.

Thanks -- (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I should note that for context, Jessica Yaniv is the complainant in a high-profile case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. At one point, the BCHRT had put in place a publication ban on their name. That ban was lifted due to the complainant's many public statements regarding the case. Since then, their full name has been published by many reputable sources, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Forbes Magazine, and the National Post. They've also conducted several media interviews since then. So, I don't think there are any BLP issues regarding the publication of their full name. On the other hand, I think the collapsed sections should probably be deleted as they do contain unproven allegations of criminal behavior. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cosmic Sans:
BLP states When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
The full legal name of the plaintiff in the BC tribunal case is on the court records, that does not mean that it is BLP compliant to repost it at every possible opportunity in discussions. Please take BLP seriously and remove the name from your remarks here, it is both unnecessary and potentially seriously damaging as you are repeatedly and deliberately taking action to use Wikipedia to publish the trans woman's full legal name alongside what appears to be libellous and possibly entirely hoax hearsay that targets that same person.
You could have chosen very easily to comply with my request in this thread to "please avoid unnecessarily repeating the non-notable person's full legal name", what do you think that deliberately not having the courtesy to the Wikipedia community to do so looks like? Your actions equate to deliberately forum shopping abusive content. -- (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the name issue is a "mountain out of a molehill" situation. If someone is openly giving media interviews about the topic, I think it's hard to say that it's somehow offensive to BLP to use that name. I do agree with you as to the criminal allegations, though. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, you do not "agree with me about the criminal allegations", you are doing the exact opposite. You are deliberately posting a non-notable person's full legal name right in a request to remove serious damaging hearsay, you are deliberately using Wikipedia to increase the potential serious harm to a living person. Take action. Remove the name from your comments in this thread. -- (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't see how using Yaniv's name is harmful when Yaniv themselves is active in the media about this. There are many reliable sources covering their name. I just don't see how the mere invocation of their full name is somehow causing "serious harm" to that person. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
A point on one of your comments in a closed discussion: Wikipedia is not here to republish allegations. We can discuss legal cases and prosecutions, but allegations of serious crimes, which may have no other outcome, should not be being haphazardly repeated on talk pages. See the notices at the top of the page. Under WP:BLPTALK, asking questions of whether a certain allegation or sources support it should be included is generally allowable, without any other context of editor intent, etc. (eg there was much hand-wrangling about the allegations made about Neil deGrasse Tyson before an acceptable version was added - that's how BLPTALK should work). As long as the questions are asked in good faith, then there's little need to revdel that. That's in general. In terms of editor intent, however, that can change things, particularly if there's evidence they were a known provocative editor that was, for all purposes, shitposting to raise ire. Just a point to keep in mind. --Masem (t) 14:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, "shitposting to raise ire", seems accurate. The above unnecessary naming, by the same person who has been effectively forum shopping the same stuff, and has been repeatedly advised how problematic it is, appears to be doing exactly that. Doing so is completely unnecessary in this thread and is therefore a BLP violation. -- (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
, if you can't dial back the WP:ABF and faux-legal rhetoric you are likely to be topic-banned or worse. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Huh, quoting policy and quoting others in the same thread, is not ABF. There is no "faux-legal rhetoric" here. The material is hearsay. It is potentially damaging. It is serious. These are facts. -- (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
So were many of the accusations made from #MeToo, which is why editors used BLP Talk pages to determine when they were acceptable to include on various articles, judging sourcing quality and the like. We do need to seperate out the intent of the editor in question here from what BLPTALK policy allows; we need to be able to discuss serious allegations and the sourcing that is used to validate them, unless of course the sourcing is outright bogus (like, say, a reddit or 4chan post). --Masem (t) 14:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
, It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it. This is a hot button issue for you, and your rhetoric is well over the line into strident. Please dial it back and allow the many admins watching the page decide whether others are acting in good faith or not. Aside from anything else, you need it to be abundantly clear to responding admins that you are not the source of the toxic atmosphere there. Right now, that is not at all clear. Do you see what I mean? Guy (Help!) 15:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
In terms of naming, at the point these discussions were taking place: "Jessica Yaniv" was well and fully identified by the media and her own social media affirmed it. Now, if we're talking deadnaming, that's different, but at this stage, "Jessica Yaniv" is fully valid to mention on WP under BLPTALK. Whether she needs to be named in an article, that's different but that's what BLPTALK is supposed to help figure out. --Masem (t) 14:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, the fact is that the trans woman has not published the hearsay, and what is under discussion is comments made on talk pages about the BC tribunal case, not about an article about a BLP subject. The plaintiff in the BC tribunal case specifically does not have to be fully named by us to understand which case we are discussing, or what is valid material for the content of an article about the BC tribunal case.
There is no evidence of the equivalent of a #metoo case. Nobody has gone to the police, no serious journalist has verified or published evidence that we can use anywhere on Wikipedia. All anyone is doing is taking what might be hoaxes from social media or re-reported from originally a conspiracy website with no editorial policies and no journalistic standards. That's nothing but the worst possible type of potentially hoax material to link to or reproduce about a living person on Wikipedia. There's no "it's necessary for Wikipedia discussion" in this case, or with these sources. -- (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
BLP's scope is not strictly limited to pages about BLPs but any topic where there are clear individual BLPs involved, such as this tribunal case.
I understand your concerns on the specific editor in question , but I am speaking to the hypothetical: if the same information on the tribunbal case's talk page was brought to attention by an editor that was acting in good faith, not sure on the sourcing or quality of sources, then there is no problem with that material per BLPTALK. It was quickly dismissed, never got to a mainspace page, and the like, and I would hope that the comments left suggested to this hypothetical editor acting in good faith to make sure their sourcing is better. In the actual case, with the sock likely involved, that's different, and makes the material appear malicious, that I can respect the concern of leaving it there. But in the general case, that type of discussion is allowed to occur, and better to have it occur on the talk page before someone attempts to add it to mainspace. --Masem (t) 14:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for the views about policy.
With regard to this case, where what has been described as an attack page, with transphobic material linked from it, with potentially hoax allegations being repeated in it, created by an indef blocked user, blocked for their history of anti-transgender disruption, do you have an opinion of whether my request to remove this material is correct, and per WP:BLP action should be taken immediately?
Or is Wikipedia a website that allows people to indefinitely forum shop the equivalent of <full legal name> has had <hearsay statements and images of serious criminal activities, reposted in various places but only ever originally sourced to a conspiracy website and Facebook> but they can carry on reposting and effectively using Wikipedia to promote the material, even though nobody in good faith can find any police statements, legal case, serious BLP-worthy reliable sources to support these statements?
The latter is what has been done now in an AfD, an article talk page, this BLP/N request, and even an Arbcom clarification request, and I have not actually gone looking for other pages, like user talk pages, that might have the same material. That is excessive, you must agree. The indef blocked user behind this must be laughing their socks off at how well they have promoted attacks against a trans woman and got other users to make it so much worse. -- (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about transphobia, but I think that the material as presented has been purely factual and supported by reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, from what I have seen it would not yet be fit for articles, and I'm not clear on how reliable the sources are. On the other hand, as Masem says, these sort of things have to be worked out somewhere, which is on talk pages. I think the analogies with #metoo are apt. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
First, let's talk about the specific sock user contributions and collapses discussions (2 of the 3 in the pages above) - that seems fully apt for revdel given the nature of the original user.
Second, I would agree that it is not appropriate for at least the questionable accusations to be discussed in any depth on AFD or user pages. BLPTALK is meant to confine those discussions to the talk page of the most-apt BLP-related page, and strongly discourages/disallows them elsewhere. But keep in mind, this is for in-depth discussion. Mere mention of the existence of these allegations (not any of the details) on talk pages, particularly related to admin/consensus-needed opinions to at least establish what the situation is, is a necessary element; we can't just keep dancing around with obtuse language to be clear that in fact they exist. ("There's a problem on this talk page!" "What's the problem?" "I can't say, just look!") So, for example, in this section alone, there are no problems that allegations have been mentioned. We're not discussing them in any depth. --Masem (t) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Cosmic Sans, You are confusing "factual" with "likely hoax".
There is zero evidence that the hearsay is anything but deliberate hoaxes, fabrications or embellishment. The are no reliable sources that put a real journalists name against the claim that there has been an official report of criminal behaviour. None of this material is part of the BC tribunal case. None of it has been put on the record by any lawyer and no journalist has put their name against it as "factual". Guess why no lawyer would put their name against it, even though it would immediately resolve their defense?
Masem, the arguments here to sit around and do nothing to correct this, and actually apply WP:BLP as stated, are increasingly bizarre. I fail to understand why this is being allowed to happen when our policies are so extremely clear. The links are above, there is no logical need to keep on reposting the likely hoax claims about a living person here, and to continually keep on using her full legal name, in addition to the other places this same stuff has been published, including the external links, that you can look at, with your own eyes. -- (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree with Masem's take on this. However with a strong caviat that attempts to game this, such as by inserting allegations into unrelated discussion topics in an attempt to WP:ATTACK a BLP or to muddy the water of a discussion should be treated as disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me clarify my point. I don't think that using Jessica Yaniv's full name or discussing the BCHRT case, in any way, offends BLP. I do agree that discussing criminal accusations in the article may violate BLP. I don't think that discussing these allegations on Talk violates WP:BLPTALK. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The real question for Wikipedia is not "what is the hearsay, we want to read it" but "what are the reliable sources". The source examination has gone on at length, in detail. That's done. There are no quality reliable sources. There is conspiracy websites, amateur YouTube video, Facebook pages and Twitter - along with basically one publisher (Postmedia Network inc.) that is repeating that material with no source other than the conspiracy website with no editorial policy, and zero credibility. With no reliable sources after so many people looking for sources and discussing them at length, the job has already been done to justify action, not another groundhog day excuse to repost all the same junk. -- (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPTALK is pretty explicit on this exact point Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating [This link] has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion. Allegation sourced to the Post Millennial and / or the Toronto Sun would be poorly sourced allegations. As such, I'd say that, in this specific circumstance, bringing up specifics of the allegations on talk would constitute a contravention of WP:BLPTALK guidance. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Isn't Toronto Sun considered reliable? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#Is Toronto Sun a reliable source? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was too but its a tabloid. (It's the Star that is the more legit news source from Toronto). But I mean, again the hypothetical user acting in good faith seeing these sources and not aware of our policies to the letter has every right to ask about them on a BLP talk page to see if they are valid. A known troublemaker editor asking about them, however, is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the Toronto Sun is useless as an RS for basically anything more controversial than sports scores. Especially since they regularly blend opinion and reportage without any regard for what's fact and what's their opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Which sources tell us that the Toronto Sun is a tabloid? At the time of that noticeboard discussion DIYeditor highlighted, the lead of the article just described it as a regular newspaper. Then, a little after that discussion ended, some random newb changed the intro.[66] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't need sources to tell us whether a source is reliable or not. Determining the reliability of a source, or rather, the reliability of the information given by a source, is exactly what we can and should do for every bit of info. Indeed, we have a whole set of guidelines and policies solely dedicated to this task. Nearly every discussion should really center around a source's reliability for a particular type of info. If it looks like a tabloid, reads like a tabloid, and quacks like a tabloid, it's probably a tabloid. Zaereth (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Zaereth, there have been Wiki disagreements on what a tabloid is. I remember watching Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs? while eating popcorn. NinjaRobotPirate said he added a source for "tabloid"[67] for the Toronto Sun, but the source only calls Toronto Sun a tabloid in its sorta heading, where it says, "Toronto tabloid launched just two days after the death of the 95-year-old Telegram." Other than that, it says, "Forty-seven years after its launch, the Sun is still publishing, as is the rival Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail." Globe and Mail ain't a tabloid either. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I suppose we can forgive Halo Jerk1 for again not understanding the Canadian newsmedia landscape. But this is a weak take. See, the Toronto Sun, unlike the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail is quite literally a tabloid. In that it's a tabloid-format newspaper while the other two are broadsheets. Furthermore the Sun is notorious. See it's always been a bit of a dodgy paper, in the 1990s it was most widely known for publishing a picture of a woman in a bikini on page two once a week (called a sunshine girl). And after it was bought by postmedia there was no real reason to make it better - after all, for the Serious News Readers in Toronto, postmedia had the National Post. The Sun serves two main purposes: 1) to accurately communicate sports commentary and 2) to publish conservative opinion pieces weakly disguised as news. So not only are they quite literally a tabloid format paper but their poor fact checking, and constant blending of news and editorial makes them very much the sort of yellow journalism that generally gets ascribed to more well-known tabloids like the Daily Mail. And all this is WP:BLUESKY - if you're a Canadian, you know this, because you grew up with it. And it attracts very little actual attention because the Sun is old. And storied. And has always been awful. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223, that archived stuff I linked to was around the same time as the discussion about the difference between tabloids and tabloid format. Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156#tabloids out. Looking at a search of the archives about tabloid format[68], somewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255, SMcCandlish said, "Daily Mail or any other tabloid as a source. (I mean tabloid in the sense of tabloid journalism, not the tabloid (newspaper format) size factor)." However, I agree that you know more about the Toronto Sun than I do. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Fæ complains about mentioning the individual's name and bringing attention to these allegations, but does more of the same by making a big production on a public noticeboard. They were the first to mention the name here and did it twice (necessarily so). Streisand effect in action. Maybe it would've been better to take the advice at the top of the page You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns or finding other avenues to bring attention to this without inextricably drawing more public notice to the issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, this is false. I used the registered BC tribunal case name. At no point have I used the plaintiff's full legal name as it is unnecessary. It would be rather silly to avoid the BC tribunal case name. -- (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It should be noted that an Administrator with Oversight permissions (DeltaQuad) has reviewed this and explicitly stated that they will not revdel the full name. In the past, DeltaQuad had oversighted the full name but changed their position once the publication ban was lifted and sources began covering the name. Source to Diff: [[69]]. We should avoid admin-shopping here. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I will completely agree that at this point, BLP's guideance does not cover using Yaniv's name on talk pages to discussion the situation around the article. Mainspace is a different issue, but that's not what's being asked here. The press have widely reported it after the court order expired, Yaniv's talked about it in interviews and social media, the "we shouldn't name the non-notable subject" boat has sailed. This is not like the case of the Star Wars Kid (prior to his own outing), where the person kept out of the limeline, and while the name was published, it was not as widely reported compared to Yaniv. --Masem (t) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

* Do not revdel, at least the material discussed below - Fae's request to revdel talk page discussions would seemingly cover this comment that Fae made in response to my comments here and here, the latter of which links to a Postmedia source. It seems to me that the whole discussion is a perfect example of what editors ARE supposed to do in non-article space per WP:BLPTALK, which specifies, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" (emphasis added). It thus seems to me that that whole discussion concerned evaluating the sourcing - rather than the details - of a set of allegations with respect to WP:V and therefore is a precise example of what Talk pages are for.

Any revdel of these sections, or even "deletion by an admin with stern warnings" short of revdel, would not be compliant to BLP policy except where the discussion veered away from the evaluation of sourcing, which did not happen in the specific thread collapsed here; I have not looked at all of the threads collapsed by Fae to see whether any of them contain material that is not policy compliant, but this one is a clear discussion of content and sourcing.

Also note that Fae's argument seems to apply the logic of BLPCRIME to Talk pages, which is ludicrous, and in reality I do not have the impression that Fae (or the journalists in question, for that matter) have the knowledge necessary to discern whether the alleged conduct comes anywhere near the threshold of criminality in Canada. While the required sources do not exist in this case to discuss the allegations in article space, legal but arguably shameful conduct can certainly be included in BLPs when sourcing and DUE requirements are met, which means editors need to be able to have these discussions in order to evaluate the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Also note that the name of the BLP subject is not mentioned in this collapsed section, though it was of necessity included in Fae's merger proposal which provides the section heading. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I would be delighted to see my analysis revdel'ed and replaced with something like the summary "<this source with no url> is not considered reliable for this topic".
If LGBT+ people are literally forced to republish homophobic material or transphobic hoaxes, and we then successfully make our case, how disgusting and stupid would it be if the evidence that we were forced to publish remains forever on Wikipedia to link to and talk about off-wiki, forever associated with our names. That's not ethical, nor is it a workable or fair process for the majority of our LGBT+ contributors, especially the very few openly identified trans contributors are likely to find this material extremely distressing to review, but who's opinions add huge value and perspective to these BLP discussions and cases and our understanding of what it means to "respect the dignity" of BLP subjects. By doing this we guarantee to drive those voices and perspectives away from these discussions.
Action should be taken based on proportionate and sufficient evidence, no more than that. The evidence supplied at the opening of this thread was sufficient to be both alarming and factual enough to take immediate action. -- (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's be clear on the difference between an editor making a completely unfounded accusation against any BLP, and an editor linked existing accusations (which may be equally unfounded) for purposes of querying about BLPTALK. The former case we will take action on to remove; no place on WP allowed for making these types of statements against BLP. But if we're talking about existing stories, even if we revdel the linkages, they still exist out there, and that's out of our ability to do anything about. And this is true regardless of if the BLP is a LBGTQ or not. There are a few additional considerations around trans individuals such as deadnaming that come up, but they are not that "unique" of a class to require heightened BLP enforcment and revdel that you seem to be asking for, at least in within WP's capabilities. --Masem (t) 16:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past each other. Linking to a reliable source would be a useful BLP/N discussion about statements made in that reliable source. Not only are the hearsay allegations unverified, there is no reliable source to discuss.
We are straying into an area where there is a defence being made that anything posted on Facebook is fair game for BLP discussions. <You are a paedo!> can be found all over social media, that does not mean that we keep on posting those allegations on Wikipedia talk pages without any reliable sources to back it up. Literally the source for these hearsay allegations are social media posts and one conspiracy website. Prove me wrong by pointing to the reliable source that someone wants to discuss here, it does not exist, there is nothing to discuss. -- (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
BLPSPS would prevent Facebook posts from being considered as serious sources. A newbie editor might propose them in good faith, unaware of BLPSPS, but an experience editor proposing the same would likely be warned about that as they should know better. --Masem (t) 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Good, can we close this discussion then and per the policy immediately remove the material? There are no reliable sources. The hearsay was literally posted on facebook, repeated and possibly embellished by a conspiracy website with no editorial policies, and cut & paste wholesale by the Postmedia Network inc. in their tabloid rags. Nothing about this hearsay is anything else than stuff someone found one day on Facebook. -- (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, if we were dealing with an editor acting in good faith, posting those links would not be an issue under BLPTALK though I would expect that user to be explained why they are bad sources, as without digging into ownership, original reporting, etc. the original source may not be clear to that editor. --Masem (t) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec, after looking at the conspiracy site again) Good, can we close this discussion then and per the policy immediately remove the material? There are no reliable sources. The hearsay was literally posted on facebook, repeated and possibly embellished by a conspiracy website with no editorial policies who may or may not have talked to someone they found that way who is stated to be a fictional name, along with recent screenshots of websites with purported conversations from years ago that have been photoshopped (redactions are visible) and the story cut & paste wholesale by the Postmedia Network inc. in their tabloid rags. Nothing about this hearsay is anything else than stuff equivalent to what someone found one day on Facebook.
Literally anyone can send this website to the police, if they believe it, so where are the comments from the police and why is it Wikipedia's job to do a police investigation? -- (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As the "editor acting in good faith" in question, I have explained the situation here, which is a good deal more complex than Far is making out. Indeed, Fae's argumentation about the article, while relevant from a certain perspective, was not the one that should make the biggest difference in evaluating the source per WP:V and WP:RS. There is also absolutely no policy basis for removing anything in that discussion, which is entirely compliant with BLPTALK and only refers to (flawed) published sources. Fae's argumentation from social media and "conspiracy websites" was never what the discussion was essentially about, nor were any such sources linked from the discussion.
Also, Fae, you seem to be under some misapprehension about the state of Canadian law. There is nothing in the Postmedia piece I linked above that, if true, would be criminally actionable in Canada, where the subject lives. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Noting that if true is something of a sticking point here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course, Simon. And I doubt any of it is true. But Fae keeps using the argument "If this were true, the authorities would be taking action" which not only is largely irrelevant to BLPTALK policy, but is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't disagree. While I agree with Fae that the article specifically about this BLP should be deleted and that she shouldn't be mentioned by Wikipedia at this juncture (per WP:TOOSOON among many other policies) I don't think speculation on the actions of the police is apropos to the discussion. (Honestly my avoidance using the subject's name here is a little pointed if I'm engaging in self-crit.) I don't believe Wikipedia should be commenting on her because she's not a notable BLP except that a major Canadian media conglomerate latched onto her case as a Cause célèbre. Effectively, my argument is to ask whether Postmedia (which owns almost all of the cited sources in the associated articles and sections) is able to confer notability to otherwise non-notable individuals. And to challenge that it should not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Fae, with all the good faith in the world, I think it would benefit you to learn to tolerate the different perspectives at least of those who agree with you about substantive issues while disagreeing about process. For the terrain of policy-compliant speech on Talk pages about content and sourcing, there would be clear harm to the project if discussions such as the collapsed one we are discussing were to be deleted and replaced by an admin summary of the consequence of the discussion. Editors need to see the gathered evidence and how it has been evaluated in previous discussions - you may imagine it could be "distressing" for a future (trans?) reader to read your summary of the Postmedia article, but surely that reader is better off using your summary than finding and reading the original sources, the next time this question is raised. I imagine it was distressing for editors to read and discuss the sourcing of the Kevin Spacey allegations before they were reliably sourced, but it is undoubtedly a benefit to the project that sources are discussed as issues arise and that there is a continuing record of the judgements made of particular sources, both to affect content decisions on the specific source but also as precedents or reference points as we evaluate new sources. This is how we identify the tipping points for WP:V and DUE inclusion, so removing discussions "once resolved" would only promote more and less well-informed discussion of sources particularly for controversial or "potentially scandalous" claims. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@: By calling the allegations a "hoax" aren't you possibly committing a BLP violation against the accuser? Do you have evidence it is a hoax? Also, why is it particularly relevant that this is an LGBTQ+ topic, you seem to imply that that deserves some kind of special consideration as far as people being offended? Mentioning LGBTQ+ is not a trump card to win Wiki policy discussions. If a topic is too disturbing to you to edit and review material for perhaps you should recuse yourself from that topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No. The hearsay is increasingly likely to be a hoax. It is the chocolate teapot fallacy to interpret BLP to mean that "everything can be presumed to be true until proven otherwise". On that basis we can dig out every possible nasty allegation made on Twitter against anyone, and create big section titles here promoting these hoaxes and conspiracy theories. The burden of proof is on those that want to discuss the hearsay, the only question to be answered here is where is the reliable source. Can you just answer that one question please? -- (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It's one thing to say that an accusation appears uncorroborated by reliable sources (or what have you) but quite another is assert that someone has committed a hoax. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Likely hoax" is accurate. Anyway who exactly is the "someone" that you are worried about accusing? Produce the reliable source with their evidence. I have made no assertions about any person with regard to the publication of likely hoax hearsay. Keep in mind that the source (postmillennial, that conspiracy website with no editorial policies) is openly edited by someone using a fictional profile, and not for good reasons based on their own article on the subject. Why on Earth should we assume that anyone else named on their websites is real? -- (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Where are these "hoaxes" and "hearsay"? The Twitter sources for this are not RS, because they're nearly all those published by Yaniv themself. So they're primary, they're self-published and even if they meet BLPSELFPUB for a few aspects, they're not usable here. But that's not because there is a hoax that "Yaniv said this on Twitter", when we have direct access to that PRIMARY material itself. The most contentious claims here (and the ones that aren't made anywhere on WP) are mostly accusations that Yaniv's own behaviour on Twitter was unacceptable. Now yes, we have no RS for that until some credible broadsheet journo decides to investigate. But it is still ludicrous to call "hoax" on these: Twitter provides an automatic primary source.
One aspect which could easily turn out to be a hoax is Yaniv's claim that they had hoax food deliveries to their home, and that the Laser Cut salon were responsible (this is in their Tribunal deposition). Without corroboration, again we can't touch that. But even that claim is sourceable directly from Yaniv (I don't know how Tribunal depositions themselves stand w.r. to perjury as a court, but I'd certainly consider the court as an accurate reporter of such). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure you are making any relevant point. You may be making a good case to remove any cruddy material which is not have high quality reliable sources per BLP. The plaintiff in the BC tribunal case is not notable, so their personal opinions from Twitter are not relevant to anything and should not be posted on Wikipedia. I agree any crud like that needs to be promptly removed, that includes hearsay from other people too, especially fake people and photoshopped or unverified evidence. Thanks -- (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Now you're just fabricating bogeymen to be afraid of, and clearly didn't read a word of what was written (which is sadly, no surprise).
No-one is suggesting "personal opinions from Twitter". However there is a widespread allegation that Yaniv's behaviour on Twitter has itself been unacceptable: not any of their opinions, but inappropriate behaviour towards and around young girls. This is self-evidentiary (that's Twitter for you), but it's also primary and so outside our remit. But what you can't plausibly do is write it off as a "hoax".
Nor is anyone advocating (or even talking about), "fake people and photoshopped evidence". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I am talking about the use of thepostmillennial conspiracy theorist website as source material for Wikipedia and the unnecessary and avoidable reposting of those hearsay allegations. Nothing else. That is what this BLP/N request has been about from the start. Everything else is tangents and hyperbole. -- (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@:In order to determine whether a reliable source exists, it is necessary to discuss the actual sources. For the collapsed discussion we are talking about here, I linked theguardian.pe, which is one of the Postmedia regional outlets (for Prince Edward Island). To determine whether that counted as a reliable source, it was necessary to actually discuss it (and determine that the story originated in the Toronto Sun, a Postmedia tabloid). If the story had instead originated with the Postmedia's National Post, it would most likely have counted as a reliable source. This is why WP needs to have, and to record, these discussions of sources. Your post deconstructing the article may have saved future (trans?) readers the "discomfort" of reading the article, and did a good job of evaluating the "journalist"'s own evidence, but the reliability of the source depends ultimately on the discipline of the newsroom issuing it, and not on whether it's argument can be taken apart by clever editors.
I would also point out that you have, presumably in good faith, proposed to accuse a related BLP subject of a crime (as I gently pointed out here, and did so on the basis of Original Research rather than any kind of reliable sourcing. If your proposal were implemented as you suggested, it would most definite BLP violation, especially devoid of sourcing. I would therefore suggest that you would be better off tolerating discussions of content and sourcing on Talk pages rather than maintaining your current BATTLEGROUND approach. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
tangent concerning "hateful speech" vs, "hate speech"
This is a tangent, but a factual correction in case someone misinterprets your post. Based on the evidence that was under discussion, that person has been banned from Twitter for publishing hateful speech. My description was and is accurate and sufficiently precise under the host country of this website, and the country I am residing in. So nothing there is a problem, it is an accurate way of describing why the person was banned from Twitter, not an allegation of committing a specific crime. That you live in a different country where similar words are used to describe a crime, does not stop those words being accurate, neither is it a reason to censor that description. Wikipedia does not stop describing people for whom part of their notability is being gay as "gay", just because there are countries they might choose to travel in where homosexuality is a crime. Stephen Fry comes to mind who is notable for having done exactly that. -- (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
You are ignoring the quite salient point that Wikipedia is not limited to the US (though like Twitter it is governed by US tort law), and so you were proposing that Wikipedia in its own voice accuse a BLP subject of a crime in the jurisdiction in which that subject lives, based on your own Original Research. Twitter, the courts, and the non-tabloid journalistic sources do not use the term "hate speech" as the reason for the ban, and "hate speech" against Trans people in particular is criminal in Canadian law. Your travel example is bizarre, but if I were to insert claims of "blasphemy" into a BLP for a resident of Saudi Arabia without satisfying the requirements of BLPCRIME, that would be a serious policy violation. It's called BLPCRIME and not BLPUSCRIME for a reason: the policy doesn't stop at your own parochial borders. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, this is too deep down a tangential rabbit hole. If your view of how the world works were true, then Twitter would not have published their "Hateful Speech" policy, or at least exempted everyone who claimed to be Canadian and wanted to be transphobic on the site, as Twitter would be making allegations of a crime every time they applied it. However if what you say is true, then super, the facts are verified and true, even supported by court evidence using those precise words, nothing for us to worry about against BLPCRIME apart from stating the facts accurately and making sure we reference those public court documents. That's even protected by Freedom of speech in Canada as you are aware. -- (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Hateful speech" (Twitter's term) is not "Hate speech" (your term). The latter is illegal in Canada against several designated groups including Trans people. Freedom of speech in Canada explicitly does not cover anti-Trans hate speech, as you really ought to know. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I wrote "Hateful Speech" deliberately. Well done, we are in agreement. -- (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Except that you didn't write that until just now. This is supposed to be a no-gaslighting zone. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why should WP, which is WP:NOTCENSORED, censor any content which is a matter of public record in an open court?
Since 18 July, Ms Yaniv's name has been published by the court (and even before that date, their initials were). There has also been widespread publication of this issue by Ms Yaniv herself through a number of channels, most Twitter. Her publication of this herself was one of the major issues in lifting the publication ban.
The court does not normally suppress complainant's names. "Tribunal’s proceedings are presumptively public. Orders which restrict public access may only be justified where a person can show that their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in access to the proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 5." ["Reasons For Decision Application to Lift Publication Ban" (PDF). Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 147. 18 July 2019.]
" There is no purpose served by the Tribunal protecting Ms. Yaniv’s identity when she does not feel the need to do so herself. Upholding a publication ban in this case undermines the integrity of the Tribunal as a public institution and can no longer be justified."
You have given no reason why WP should suppress information which is at the forefront of public knowledge about this case, and which has been placed there by the complainant herself. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(A point though: if Yaniv's name only came from court documents, not other RSes, then BLP does step in to say that we should not be using it or covering it, even if the court says its records are public. Obviously, we have massive press coverage, so that's not a concern here. --Masem (t) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC) )
Do you have any other points that do not apply here, which you'd like to raise? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
My main concern with regard to the use of her name is centered around the way in which, as I've linked elsewhere previously, it has been used in connection with speculation about elements of her private life in order to embarrass her or as a form of attack. I think it's safe to say the question of where she stands with regard to her gender confirmation surgery is not something an encyclopedia has any business commenting on. This is especially the case when one uses loaded language such as "genetically male" or "biologically male". Frankly these tenth-grade simplifications of the biological science regarding sex and gender should be beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia notwithstanding their political connotations. Ultimately, I suppose the question we should be asking is this: if a conservative newsmedia conglomerate that snapped up most of the local dailies in Canada decides that an activist should become notable, must Wikipedia follow suit. So far, the coverage provided does not satisfactorily demonstrate WP:BLP1E has been passed. And most of the reporting is either postmedia or drawn directly from postmedia to feed the online news cycle. I still maintain that, more than just avoiding mentioning her name, Wikipedia should be mute on this subject until such time as there is evidence of lasting significance. Because absent any lasting significance, all this whole kerfuffle is, is a protracted attack on one woman of no particular notability. And regardless of how individuals may feel about this woman or her opinions, it's not the place of an encyclopedia to launch a protracted attack on anyone, but especially not on one woman of no particular notability. Nor is it the place of an encyclopedia to speculate on the shape of her genitals. And the fact this has happened on this, and other pages, within Wikipedia disgusts me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a way to approach the subject delicately. Of course, there are challenges. One of the defenses raised by the Salons is that they do not have the expertise to wax male genitalia; apparently they need a special kind of wax and a special type of training as the skin is different. Naturally some reference should be made to this. We can be tasteful about it, though. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Approaching the subject delicately implies we need to approach the subject at all. As I said immediately above, I think this is not a notable circumstance per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:ATTACK and other policies, essays and guidelines I've cited before in this extensive discussion. Again, I don't dispute that sources exist I dispute that sources existing in newspapers confers automatic notability for BLP related topics. No strong case has been presented that this event has, as of yet, any lasting significance at all. My point that no changes to law or culture have occurred as a result of this piece of conservative media cruft have been met with silence. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, there is no excuse whatsoever to use Wikipedia talk pages to discuss private parts of a trans woman that you have insisted on fully naming. This is precisely the transphobic rubbish that is posted all over Twitter and it has nothing to do with removing the hearsay this thread is about. -- (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

For those keeping score: most of the sources are from the same media conglomerate. The question of whether a media conglomerate can confer notability to a random BLP remains unanswered. It is definitely illegal to engage in hate speech in Canada. The question of whether certain Postmedia authors have crossed that line is not one that has, at this time, been taken up by Canadian courts, and as such is not relevant to discussion here. The central question of whether a BLP should be named when they are otherwise not notable remains in contention however is largely academic in this case as we all know exactly who we're talking about. Additional questions raised here include: whether Wikipedia should have event pages about media causes célèbres and how that lines up with WP:EVENTCRIT. What the boundaries are for what constitutes a public person. Whether it is better to approach the question of a BLP's genital shape delicately or not at all. If I've missed a major thread that bears discussion please add it but let's try to stay on topic. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

* Comment - the only question here that interests me is, Under what circumstances, if any, should BLPTALK-compliant discussions be Admin deleted or revdel-led? I hope this question can be answered in the negative, but it is surely the only one that can actually be resolved in this venue, at least provisionally. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

More specifically, as spelt out at the start, should anyone have actually read the threads, the issue is hearsay allegations reported on thepostmillennial website. This material has fake names and photoshopped images. It is salacious and weird, mainly because why the hell would anyone choose to publish evidence of a serious crime there, as opposed to going to the police, or going to a real newspaper. The website has no editorial policies and it is not regulated by any external body as it does not publish material from actual registered journalists. There are 2 named "editors", and one of those is fictional. This hearsay was cut and paste directly from thepostmillennial by a Postmedia Network employee named Graeme Gordon, who posted the same story and material in an unknown number of Postmedia Network websites. This seems to be a common practice for Postmedia Network. The websites are tabloid style news outlets, with plenty of salacious headlines and act as unmoderated forums, hence the same sites have attracted haphazard public comments which include threats of violence and transphobic abuse. The hearsay includes various historical claims (several years old, despite recently taken screen shots) about the trans woman plaintiff in the BC tribunal case.

As far as I am aware, "thepostmillennial" has no direct connection to Postmedia Network.

There are no other original sources for this hearsay, apart from thepostmillennial website.

None of this should be necessary to spell out here at BLP/N, because it is all made clear in the links at the start, if you follow them and follow the claims and urls posted. Nothing else raised in these discussions is relevant evidence. -- (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I feel similar to you in this Fæ. There are concerns, talkpages are usually less policed and as far as I know, don't return in google searches so as I have seen there is much more leeway than in an article, I don't think it is ok though and BLP policy is that it is project wide. talkpage and all. The idea I think is that if you can't get it in the article, spam it on the talpage.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Fae, please refrain from erroneous statements, by which I mean the following:
  • In the discussion we were talking about above, nobody linked to thepostmillennial but only to the Postmedia site, and only to determine its reliability as a source. The only one discussing the allegations themselves is you, when you repeatedly (and inaccurately) characterize them as "serious crimes".
  • You keep referring to "evidence of a serious crime", although it has been pointed out that nothing in the postmedia piece - even if it were all true - would be a crime in Canada, the jurisdiction in which anything that might have happened, would have happened. Therefore BLPCRIME - which appears to be the underlying basis of your argument - does not apply.
  • It has been pointed out to you that BLPCRIME does not even apply to Talk pages; the relevant policy is BLPTALK. You have therefore suggested absolutely no policy-compliant basis even for deletion much less revdel. "Hearsay" is a legal concept; all non-profits sources, reliable or not, are "hearsay" in the way we use them on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Canada, Criminal Code section 172.1. The hearsay is precisely this. -- (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be following the wrong publication in Postmedia, perhaps. The Gordon article directly attributes thepostmillennial. -- (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There are no 172.1 accusations of any kind in the Postmedia source. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are looking at. It's clear cut. Completely explicitly this. -- (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
And this is precisely why we are not allowed to do OR as editors. There are simply no allegations of criminality, or of acts which, if committed, would be criminal. It is not our job as editors to "fill in between the lines". Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(EC)This is important where understand the "good faith" part of BLPTALK comes into play. If we know an editor has some dislike for a certain BLP, and that editor continually spams such links knowing they are bad, that's something actionable. Or if there becomes a clear sign of IP brigading to include such links on talk pages, actions can be taken then. But I've stated above about a novice editor acting in good faith presenting such a link for the first time should neither be put to task for that link, nor should that link be removed per BLPTALK. The problem with the link should be explained, so the editor (and other editors in good faith that follow) are aware. Also I will add that it can be helpful for editors working in good faith to be aware of actual hoaxes and the like floating around as to be able to address attempts to change content in a bad manner. It should be clear that in either of these cases, very little detail of the actual accusation needs to be discussed, just the link and discussion of why it is a bad source/potential problem. That all fits within BLPTALK. I don't see the accusations getting significant discussion in the hatted sections that have been marked from the original OP, so there's little reason to revdel those, they are following policy. --Masem (t) 20:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now noticed the connection between Postmedia Network and thepostmillennial. Graeme Gordon writes as a "freelance journalist" at the latter too, describing themselves as covering "Loonie Politics". So basically, this amounts to a single source as this looks very incestuous. -- (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Loonie is a Canadian coin. "Loonie Politics" is the tongue-in-cheek name of an online Canadian newsletter[70]. gnu57 21:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has argued in this venue that there is any reliable sourcing for this, so let's not move the goalposts. The only question is whether there are policy grounds to delete the Talk page discussions you (legitimately) collapsed. So far, you haven't provided any. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As you appear to be looking at the wrong article it's no surprise you think this. The Gordon article I am looking at explicit quotes claims by Slatz, posted from thepostmillennial. There is no OR, you just read the text. -- (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Slatz refers to "victims" but does not allege criminality, which suggests that she may understand Canadian law better than you do. Also, the National Post ran its own story on this topic today by an actual journalist, which I will not link here, so I think it would be foolish to regard this sourcing question as permanently settled. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


Postmedia has been running this issue on every outlet they own, even trotting out confirmed Lich Rex Murphy to write one of his trademarked snyde, pun-filled opinion columns for the local papers. Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the October election with a pro-LGBTQ incumbent I am sure and is rather an indication that this one woman who filed a human rights complaint in BC is suddenly The Most Important Canadian. But that's another reason why news coverage != automatic notability for BLPs. That said, I broadly agree with Masem and Newimpartial in post-break analysis of how to handle the specific issue of revdeling contentious sources in BLP contexts. (And I wouldn't worry too much over the non-Canucks missing Canadian in-jokes or subtleties of context. We remain too British for the Americans, too American for the Brits and too French for either.) Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't revdel discussions from talkpages that are about the inclusion/exclusion of material. Even if the material is not used. Otherwise you have to have the same discussion over and over again every time a new halfbaked loon shows up to rerun the same discussion. Archive/collapse yes. Delete no. BLPTALK specifically addresses this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the most astonishing "black is white" double think. When Slatz describes minors as being "victims", claims this has been reported to a child abuse service, "sexual harassment of minors", and "trying to share child porn" this literally could not be clearer as why the hearsay material should not be on Wikipedia. @Newimpartial: How is Canada a haven for "sexual harassment of minors" and "child porn", so that is never a crime? Please supply a source as I do not recall Canada ever being a favorite holiday destination for people looking to do this sort of thing without fear of prosecution.
Don't be silly, it's hearsay about a serious crime and Wikipedia should not be republishing it or linking to this hearsay anywhere without WP:BLP compliant reliable sources. -- (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I will AGF and answer your question, Fae, though I am not sure that is what you want. In Canada,"sexual harassment" (of adults or of minors) is not a criminal charge and therefore not a criminal allegation. There is such a thing as criminal harassment, colloquially known as "stalking", but the bar for that is high and it is not ALLEGED in any of the Postmedia pieces. Sexual assault is another criminal charge, in various forms, but that hasn't been ALLEGED by anyone either in this case. You are the only one supposing that a "serious crime" is being discussed, and that just ain't so. You don't get th make up WP:OR allegations just because it might suit your POV.
And by the way, like it or not, today's National Post piece is undoubtedly RS so this entire discussion is largely irrelevant, aside from its policy implications. Newimpartial (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem locked into the same rhetoric. Child pornography and any attempt to own it or share it, is a crime in Canada. Please do not keep finding ways of implying that it is not, because you understand Canadian law better than I.
Sure, with the National Post (owned yet again by the Postmedia Network) " brandishing a Taser" post, if someone wants to try adding owning a taser to the BC tribunal case article, that's fine, but will probably be removed as irrelevant. However "The RCMP detachment in Langley confirmed an arrest and search of a home in the area but could not confirm specific details, charges, timelines or named individuals, said Cpl. Craig Van Herk." is vague, it clearly and deliberately does not actually confirm that the plaintiff in the BC tribunal case the article is about, has been arrested.
However the National Post makes an entirely mysterious statement of "several allegations of harassment" existing. It provides zero new information. Given the history here, and the exact phrasing of what the National Post says about "allegations", this is again the Postmedia Network recycling the hearsay from thepostmillennial conspiracy website, the site where some of their own regular contributors publish, the same issues apply for it being a WP:BLP failure. None of these statements have been confirmed as fact rather than a possible hoax. -- (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The postmedia article I linked from on the Talk page contained no pornography allegations. Perhaps you should pay attention to the actual sources under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It was the source you linked to that I read an then followed to their actual source that they were cut & pasting hearsay from. There are only so many ways to keep spinning and reframing this, however you do it, it is a BLP failure.
The objective for Wikipedia should be to document the BC tribunal case, not to find excuses to promote damaging serious hearsay of any kind, regardless of the personal opinions of individual Wikipedians are as to what might be a crime in Canada and what might not be based on spending several hundred words wikilawyering the text. -- (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@:The National Post is certainly a WP:RS though also certainly one with a strong POV. However we can argue, as I have, repeatedly, for other grounds that this content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I would suggest that it would be advisable to give this specific line of questioning a rest as unproductive and, as you are concerned about the content, review the multitude of legitimate policies, essays and guidelines I've cited as grounds to exclude discussion of this BLP on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gotten a bit into the weeds. For BLP, the questions are always verifiability with some care given to living people who are private persons. There's no lack of reliable sources on these topics even when you ignore "tabloid" sources. So first test is met. Then there's the second consideration of privacy. JY seems to celebrate and participate in the public discussions of this case when it suits her. If the Human Rights Commission felt that a publication ban should be lifted for these reasons, it's reasonable that wikipedia can address these topics too.

Now, regarding some of the peripheral allegations (ie. predatory behaviors), wikipedia routinely covers items that are mere allegations, or innuendo provided it's sourced. For instance, allegations that Prince Andrew may have sexually assaulted young women are both salacious and (yet) unproven in any way shape or form. Once JY jumped into the limelight, repeatedly pressing her version of events, she's really no different from any other public figure who's in the news. There are several reliable sources, excluding the Postmillenial, that mention JYs alleged behaviors.Mattnad (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As has been discussed at length in various fora, Postmillenial is a blog and not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the point was sources other than PM were offered. So even if not all the sources are RS enough are. Springee (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there are plenty of non-PM Sources for the broad stroke of the Human Right Tribunal case but for the background details of potentially predatory behavior with girls or immigrant views there are also a couple. I haven't bothered with any of the Sun, Daily Mail tabloid types, or conservative magazine like the National Reiew. These also cover the topics:
  • An article written by Helen Joyce, who's also an editor for The Economist in Quillette. Quillette has seasoned editors and contains a variety of more intellectual pieces. It meets all of the requirements for RS.
  • An article from the National Post - a major Canadian newspaper that states in part, "(JY) is the subject of several allegations of harassment, including claims she has a history of vulgar sexualized online communication with teenage girls, at least one of whom has contacted a national tip-line for reporting the sexual exploitation of children."
  • An article for The Spectator (US edition) that includes details of JYs less than progressive views about immigrant women.
Just as an aside, you don't have to agree with the publisher's editorial policies or political leanings. They just have meet WP:RS guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are generally not considered reliable for statements of fact. The National Post might work, but this is kind of a moot point: Yaniv herself isn't notable, and no one has made an argument for actually including these accusations in mainspace - so there's no real point discussing them on talk pages. The only real question was whether we should oversight those irrelevant talk page discussions or simply hat them. Nblund talk 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Not clear those are opinion pieces but I agree that right now its to be determined how these allegations are necessary. We still should be allowed to discuss and not censor talk pages. Where we disagree is on notability of JY. Up here in Canada (where I now reside) this is all over the radio and many papers. I read other editors suggesting it's not notable unless it hits US papers like NY Times or Washington Post. Those papers only occasionally write about Canadian issues. English Wikipedia isn't only about what's important to Americans.Mattnad (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPKINDNESS toward SmmaryEdit

I can't reconcile what's written in WP:BLPKINDNESS with the ongoing demeaning hostility and exclusion Flyer22 Reborn continues to direct at BLP subject Smmary.

Here is a complete list of edits by Smmary in the last year:

That's it, all Feb 2019, and all wholly reverted by Flyer22 Reborn.

Before proceeding, I want to quote from BLPKINDNESS at length:

"Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern."

You can see through the four edits that there is no doubt that this BLP subject tried to fix what she sees as errors. Therefore, the expectation is that all will approach with leniency toward those activities, and kindness toward the BLP subject. It hit home for me what the motive was when the BLP subject write: the Wikipedia article has caused harm to my family due to presentation of material that purports as 'fact', and at closer look, the articles relied on are skewed on facts and not coroborated. Her edits, comments, sourcing, and motives stated on her user page show Smmary is very solidly and clearly a BLP subject seeking to fix errors. Now she is also a verified account, and has agreed to refrain from edits, but those are the 4 she made. Just those 4.

Ok, having studied those 4 changes (which I largely believe to be improvements based on my own careful study of NPOV-secondary sources), now see Flyer22 Reborn's comments to Smmary, and please evaluate whether they show "every effort to act with kindness".

  • "... you need to watch your WP:COI." - Leniency? Kindness?
  • "It is not a good idea for you to edit the Mary Kay Letourneau article. At all." - Leniency? Kindness?
  • "We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not your 'facts.' You shouldn't be removing text like 'having sex with' as though you were simply found in the car with the boy."

This last one has serious problems, most notably failure to assume good faith. Some background: For many years, Wikipedia claimed as fact the dubious claim that the subject was found having sex on the night of her arrest. An administrator's intervention finally put an end to Flyer22 Reborn's belligerent insistence that this most salacious claim must survive. I hope it's clear that a BLP subject arrived to correct what ultimately we ourselves concluded was misinformation. But far from leniency and kindness, Flyer22 Reborn abused the BLP subject in response.

And this abuse is ongoing. Look carefully at the 4 edits at issue. Now look carefully at what Flyer22 Reborn claimed on August 5th that those 4 edits merit shunning:

"Given the issues with Smmary's editing... you should stop pinging Smmary to this talk page. We are not going to by Smmary's words on these maters."

There are no issues in those edits, and this is not leniency or kindness. Additionally, Flyer22 Reborn false and severe claim about Smmary--that these 4 edits in February compel us all to shun her--is both a severe and persistent false claim about a living person.

Any ideas about how to stop this abusive behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs)

Administrator's intervention? That editor is not an administrator. And belligerent insistence? And most salacious claim? And abuse? I can't with you. I really can't. Zaereth and Kmhkmh's recent replies to you here, here, and here are clear. Also pinging BullRangifer and John from Idegon since they have addressed your odd and problematic editing at the Mary Kay Letourneau article, and in relation to Letourneau in ways that others have seen as you likely having a WP:COI or a severe case of WP:BLPCOI. BullRangifer has been very clear on your talk page about how your editing of BLPs has been problematic and is out of step with how we are supposed to edit BLPs.
And do learn to sign your posts consistently.
For anyone wanting the full story, do see Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#Unused CNN source. I didn't add the "sex in the car" aspect to the article. But it was there in that article (and still is) because numerous reliable sources have reported on it. These sources are not merely tabloids. As the discussion shows, I did some investigating and saw that there were two "caught in the car" incidents. I worked out wording with others, and it was agreed to keep the "sex in the car" aspect, but to word it as "reported," and to include the "Fualaau told detective Dane Bean Fualaau that he and Letourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched Letourneau on the thigh, but that no sexual intercourse had occurred" aspect as well. And so we ended up with this. I am no longer interested in engaging with Mcfnord. As far as I'm concerned, Mcfnord should be topic-banned from editing BLPs. See what BullRangifer stated on Mcfnord's talk page for why. The following previous discussions also provide context: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Mary Kay Letourneau, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Mary Kay Letourneau and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Problematic user at Mary Kay Letourneau. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

None of the 3 examples you highlighted seem particularly wrong. In fact the second one seems to be similar to what many would say. I mean there are only so many ways you can say, "It's a bad idea for you to edit an article concerning yourself".

I also have no idea why you're bring this here now. BLPN is not a great place for dealing with editor behavioral concerns even if they relate to BLPs. It's a particularly bad place for dealing with long stale concerns. If you believe there is a pattern of editing which warrants some form of restriction on Flyer22 Reborn, you should open a case either on WP:AN or WP:ANI. You would likely need to demonstrate that remains an ongoing pattern so some diffs way more recent than March and frankly you'll need much better evidence.

That said, I don't agree with not pinging Smmary for the reason stated. While the statement "We are not going to by Smmary's words on these maters. Not without WP:Reliable sources and valid guideline or policy-based statements, we aren't." is true, there's no reason to not ping Smmary for that. If Smmary complies with our policies and guidelines they are entitled to express an opinion on the article talk page, just as with any other editor with a COI. They will need to argue for any charges in a manner compliant with our policies and guidelines and if they argue in a manner inconsistent with them, like keep suggesting changes based on personal experience or memory it's likely they will be sanctioned. But we're very far off that happening.

I'm not saying Smmary should be pinged. Considering it's been March since they last edited it seems pointless at this time. It's also not necessary to ping a subject everytime you propose an edit to an article concerning them. Still if you want to ping, go ahead. Remember that when someone give bad advice like Flyer22 Reborn did here, your best solution is sometimes to just ignore it an more on. There's no need to make a big deal over bad advice.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, yes, of course, Smmary is allowed to comment on the talk page. When I made the "you should stop pinging Smmary" comment, I was caught up in how she edited the article before -- based on her personal experiences/memories -- and her calling reliable sources like the Los Angeles Times unreliable and saying they got their facts wrong. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Mary Kay Letourneau if you haven't already. As long as her arguments are guideline or policy-based, I don't mind listening. This is why I stated "Not without WP:Reliable sources and valid guideline or policy-based statements, we aren't." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22: The 4 edits you call "based on her personal experiences/memories" are factual improvements, nearly all of which I've substantiated using strong sources, work that was also expected of you. The only statements she made about the L.A. Times were: "The LATimes article does not fit the reliable source definition" and "this article is not corroborated or backed up at all with reliable referencing". I share this critique of the one article, which is the more dubious long-form journalism, with many anonymous sources. You parlayed those two sentences about one article into an attack on the whole journalistic source so ferocious that it knocked you off kilter. Really? 107.77.205.115 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Sign in. You "share this critique of the one article"? I'm sure you do. I disagree with you for reasons I and others have already gone over. I did not point to four edits anyway. You often don't want to go by what reliable sources state, such as the age of the victim most commonly being reported as age 12 because you think age 13 sounds so much better. It doesn't matter what you or Smmary say about the boy's age. What reliable sources say and WP:Due weight do. And "nearly all" is not "all." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't bothered responding here because I couldn't really top what Nil Einne said. Plus I'm really bad at noticing pings, since I tend to start scrolling before the page has even loaded. (Did you know at 99 they stop counting?) Much of what I see is really a content dispute which should be hashed out on the talk page, but much of it is going on through a slow edit-war, and the talk-page discussions tend to focus more on one particular editor's dislike for another's personality. That's why I suggested and still highly suggest that Mcfnord read WP:THICK. We all have to learn to put aside our personal emotions and learn to get along.
You know, I respect and admire most of the people I encounter here, and listen to and take their opinions very seriously, even if I don't agree with them. Especially if I don't agree with them. For most of the regulars, I just sit in awe of their intelligence, but few of them I have ever called "friends". Two that I would consider my friends, Buster7 and Writegeist are two that I vehemently disagreed with on many, many occasions (on political issues, even!); one a lovable character and the other a surly, cynical individual with a very dry sense of humor. (If you think Flyer22 is hard on people, you've never met a Writegeist.) Drove me absolutely nuts at times; love 'em to death.
Nil is right, Mcfnord, this is the wrong venue. If your issue is a behavioral one, which it clearly is by your own words, then the place to take it to would be an administrator's noticeboard. That's what admins are for. Here, you're unlikely to get much more of a reply than Nil already gave you, but there you might just find that what goes around comes around. Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Individuals accused of assaulting Epstein's sex trafficking victimsEdit

Should the individuals identified in court documents as having been accused by Epstein's victims (some/all (?) of which were minors at the time) of assault have that mentioned in their Wikipedia bios? Per the Miami Herald (which will likely win a Pulitzer over its role in busting Epstein):

  • "One of the men accused of having sex with one of Epstein’s victims is former Maine Senator George Mitchell, the once formidable Senate Democratic minority leader who in 2008 — the same year the Epstein deal was finalized — was named one of Time magazine’s most influential people... Besides Mitchell, they include: the late scientist Marvin Minsky, modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, 71, Hyatt hotels magnate Tom Pritzker, 69, and prominent hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, 62. Giuffre has previously identified Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, 80, and Prince Andrew, 59, as two of the people with whom she had sex."[71]

I suspect this will be a contentious subject on various bios, so I'm putting it here preemptively. In my opinion, these accusations should be included on the Wikipedia bio of every individual mentioned above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that the case has taken an unusual turn (Epstein died this morning by apparent suicide), we don't know how this trial will proceed. I would not add info on this if only named in court documents. However, if the media make a bigger statement on this as to make its coverage well beyond UNDUE, then we probably need to add it per BLPPUBLICFIGURE since we are talking public figures here. --Masem (t) 15:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I have always thought that investigative journalism (which this source is described as in the link) should be treated as a primary source and we should use news articles that report on what investigative journalists have said. That way we do not provide undue weight to facts and opinions that appear in investigative journalism but are ignored in the rest of the media. So in this case, if the bulk of the news media are reporting these names, then they should be included. But if they only appear in the investigative articles of Julie K. Brown and Sarah Blaskey, then we should not. I don't think that Wikipedia articles should include negative information about individuals that most mainstream sources choose to ignore.TFD (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, "one" investigative article reporting from court documents is not enough of a bar. That's where I would UNDUE as the metric here. If it becomes impossible to search on these individuals' names without tripping over their claimed role in this report, then we can include. But if one has to dig through search results, we should avoid. --Masem (t) 16:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
If you google, say, Bill Richardson, then this is all that comes up (at least on my Google), and with reporting from the standard list of top news outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that his name is not coming up in association with the Epstein case, but its an interesting set of RSes - Bloomberg (ok), Reuters (ok), Vanity Fair (ehhh), Daily Caller (very ehhhh) and so on. And no NYtimes, CNN, WAPost, BBC, and so forth. It's weird set. I'd wait at least one more news cycle, particularly as Epstein's death is going to dominate the situation for the next 24hrs. It's heading for inclusion but just not quite there yet, IMO. --Masem (t) 16:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Mentioned in ABC,[72], CBS[73] NBC[74] and other news sources, so I would name them in articles about Epstein.
But that doesn't establish weight to include in their biographies, since they are passing references in articles about other people. News media will determine how significant these accusations are and may choose to run articles about the individuals, at which point we can weigh the significance. People say all sorts of things about famous people all the time.
By comparison, anti-Clinton anti-Obama conspiracy theorists have received wide coverage and there are Wikipedia articles, but we don't repeat all of them in their BLPs.
TFD (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
At this point in time I would suggest not mentioning. These are accusations rather than charges etc. They may evolve into something more substantial but so long as the sole source for the information are the unsealed court papers I would be reluctant to assume they were reliable given the BLP concerns. However, if additional corroborating evidence is presented by RSs then my objection would be addressed. Springee (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I would also not mention an accusation recently unsealed against some of Epstein's alleged accomplices until it's been the subject of a trial and the accused been convicted (or found guilty in a civil proceeding). WP:BLP is clear on our duty to be conservative regarding contentious statements on biographies of living persons which are also wikipedia articles. The ethics of those records being sealed in the first place are immaterial to WP:BLP concerns. After trials end in convictions or damage awards against subjects of wikipedia articles, those court findings are no longer contentious and may be mentioned in BLPs.
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATIONAL and other considerations argue against these accusations being allowable if ordinarily WP:RS are trying to beat each other to eyetracks/readers by publishing sensational stories with short news cycles. If popular press articles are the only sources we have, the wikipedia project would be their accomplices in any inaccuracies they commit or the accusers may have committed in hopes of garnering legal settlements, if we publish the accusations based only on that evidence. --loupgarous (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It might be due to include some of these mentions at the Epstein BP, but I wouldn't mention this on other BLPs unless/until there is significant additional coverage that focuses on an individual's ties to Epstein. At this point, I think Dershowitz is really the only person who fits that criteria, and it looks like this is already mentioned in his bio. Nblund talk 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLP and given the wide coverage in press, these accusation should be included for all "public figures", but not for others per WP:BLPCRIME. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Jayley Woo ‎and Aloysius PangEdit

Requesting rev/deletion of multiple disruptive edits to both articles. Also a block of the two responsible registered accounts would be helpful. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The two accounts are   Confirmed and blocked. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad BarakatEdit

Single purpose accounts repeatedly delete information based on reliable sources [75] and spread advertisements, text in Portuguese and misnamed sources [76] [77] [78] in the article about this Brazilian ophthalmologist known internationally for his involvement in sports doping. I suggest to permanently block Rafaelbernardes who did this again even after a warning. @Deb: moved the article to Draft:Mohamad Barakat after it was vandalized again by the same single purpose account, just after I had put this note here.[79] Please block this user permanently. Omikroergosum (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sydney Ember's page repeatedly vandalizedEdit

After writing a piece on Bernie Sanders' presence at the Iowa State Fair for the New York Times, Sydney's page is repeatedly being vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.153.98 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

James Martin (priest, born 1960)Edit

James Martin (priest, born 1960) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the added material in the following diff be included? Diff showing added material

As I explain on the article's Talk Page, the added material blatantly misrepresents the underlying sources and attempts to confer legitimacy on a campaign by anti-LGBT extremists to disparage the article's subject. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This article also violates WP:NOR as I explain here: Talk:James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960)#This_article_violates_the_prohibition_on_No_Original_Research. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, as explained on the talk page in responses to your claim.
In my opinion, you are allowing your agreement with Father Martin to cause you to behave in a way that is disruptive to Wikipedia, and you should stop, take hold of yourself, and work towards convincing other editors on the article talk page. If you can't do that, then you must drop the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This report should be closed; I'd close it myself, but I'm not a regular here, so I think that would be inappropriate. If there is a BLP violation -- and it is far from apparent that there is, since views within a hierarchical organization which oppose the hierarchy's official positions are always going to be controversial -- it is a minor one and can be easily dealt with through the normal consensus process on the talk page. It appears to me that PluniaZ is so unsure that his arguments will prevail on the talk page, that he has engaged in blatant WP:forum shopping in an attempt to help insure that their opinion will prevail in at least one venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to note that PluniaZ's arbitration case request has been rejected by the Committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Application of WP:MUGEdit

Has there ever been any consensus established on how WP:MUG is to be applied to infobox images? I guess that the fact that the section exists as part of WP:BLP means that there sort of is a consensus about this, but it's not clear how often it's applied. Two examples of this recently came up during a discussion at Commons: Jeremy Lemont Saunders and Victor Salva. The infobox images used in both of these article are mug shot photos. Both files seem to be properly licensed as WP:PD; so there's no copyright issues involved which will lead them to being deleted from Commons. Since both individuals are still living, it would be unlikely per WP:FREER for a non-free file to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes, but a different freely licensed image could be used if found.

The "Salva" article makes mention of him being convicted of a crime and serving a prison sentence, but it's a relatively small section of the article and doesn't appear to be the primary reason why Salva is Wikipedia notable. It could be argued that image's current use is justifiable, but it also seems a little undue. For reference, this was brought up at Talk:Victor Salva#New Photo?, but never addressed.

The "Saunders" article, on the other hand, contains no content at all about crime or criminal conviction. Perhaps he was arrested, but there's nothing about it in the article (maybe there once was but it was removed); so, there's no context of any kind to justify using a mug shot photo in the infobox and no discussion of the image could be found on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A mugshot should only be used in the case where the only notability of the person is being convicted of a crime. Otherwise, it is taking away from the other notable factors and thus distasteful. (If the persons is convicted of a crime like in Salva, the mug shot can be used in that later section of the article, even if this means no infobxo image). --Masem (t) 22:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Masem. For reference, I came across these two articles per c:COM:VPC#Minnesota state mugshots - public domain?, but there’re probably more. What you posted is how I’ve always tended to interpret WP:MUG as it deals with BLP image use; however, I wonder if the same reasoning can also be correspondingly applied to articles about deceased individuals where a non-free image might be allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Same issue though: unless the deceased individual was only known because of their crimes, using a non-free mug shot as the infobox image is not appropriate, and there would be less likely reason to use the mug shot in the body. MUG is clear that these shots should be seen as degrading and inappropriate to use in general, unless that's literally all we can talk about a person. --Masem (t) 23:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record, an editor professing to be the subject of the Saunders article has objected in the past to the mugshot being used as the Infobox photo. However, it appears someone recently re-added the mugshot with this edit. Muzilon (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Muzilon. I think per the Help page request comments (except for the last one) and what Masem has posted above that the file should be removed regardless of whether it was really Saunders who made the request since there's nothing at all in the article about any arrest or criminal charges and the photo seems UNDUE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam EdelmanEdit

Hi,

I have taken a look at the article, and the 'Disqualification' section is clearly biased - the only sources are his own words, and it does not meet the guidelines for the living peoples biography. Please see this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Edelman and I'm sure it will be obvious. Some of this content should be entirely removed or flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.73.18 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BOP registration numbersEdit

I noticed someone posted the Federal Bureau Of Prisons registration numbers of a bunch of severely mentally handicapped people over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim I think it might be a good idea to remove em. Nick Humley (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Where on the page does it say that they are "severely mentally handicapped"?--Auric talk 18:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard (redux)Edit

We could use another opinion on this discussion. To summarize: Humanengr added this content which quotes statements from Gabbard's campaign literature where she condemns the "establishment war machine". I reworded, because I believe the quote is excessive and because it used the phrase "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine" in Wikipedia's voice. We have not been able to reach an agreement on whether or not this is appropriate.

More broadly, I would appreciate some input from other editors regarding how much campaign material is "too much" when working with a BLP entry for a presidential candidate. For my part, I think that we can safely leave out most stuff unless it is picked up by a reliable secondary source, but that standard would mean that we took a big red pen to a huge chunk of Gabbard's entry. Nblund talk 15:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's going to be a long 15 months before Americans stop trying to elect a president again for a week or so, isn't it? Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm pretty sure we're going to re-model our electoral system after the gong show before too long.Nblund talk 16:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
On what policy basis is this a proper forum for discussing these issues? Humanengr (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Because it's material related to a living person, and because it appears to be the one-stop shop for all threads Gabbard related. You could make a case for WP:NPOVN as well, but the goal is to get outside input, so why does it matter? Nblund talk 16:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Your “Because it's material related to a living person” is not what the top of this page says. It’s specific to certain conditions. Suggest we bring this back to the talk page. Another cmt have been posted there since. Humanengr (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd take the cue from the language of BLPSPS (even though that's not the type of source here): material should not be unduly self-serving. She is, as all candidates, bolstering up her position for the election race. It is not our place to be a platform for the candidates, but to simply document that they are a candidate and have made stands on specific topics of interest. Unless we need the full quote to state how she is defending her position from misrepresentation, as short a quote should be used, better if it could just be summarized. And yes "war machine" 100% needs to be quoted and attributed outside wikivoice. --Masem (t) 16:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Masem. (All salt about endless American election cycles aside.) Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 for the above. It's a bit like Rachel Maddow's policy on Roger Stone: she does not report stories along the lines of "Roger Stone says thing", because that is what Roger Stone does. She does report stories that are about Roger Stone, in a significant way. Not every campaign press release deserves to be repeated in the Wikipedia article.
Except for Elizabeth Warren of course. Because she has a plan for everything. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
1ary sources can be used when 2ary do not address a particular issue. I’m ok w quoting ‘establishment war machine’ (as Gabbard did). Re ‘self-serving’: see my cmts on talk page. Will look again re shortening. Humanengr (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

See my note above re returning to talk page. Humanengr (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not use content that is sourced to the candidates themselves (e.g. plucked from interview transcripts, taken from campaign website, tweets). There's no reason not to rely on secondary reliable sources for this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As I noted above, given that no valid reason has been provided for bringing discussion here and there has already been further discussion on talk page (by Simonm223), it seems more appropriate to pursue discussion there. Thx Humanengr (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The goal is to get outside input. We can hammer out specifics on the talk page if you would like to propose something that is in line with the general consensus here (e.g.: we should limit direct quotes from campaign materials), but changing the venue isn't going to change the results of the discussion. Nblund talk 17:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
One thing Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY does not say is “mis-cite and misuse policy”, which you seem inclined to do. And, without justifying your use of this forum per my request, you invite comment uninformed by prior discussion. Humanengr (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: Except that there are no 2ary sources for this. Humanengr (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Well that kind of answers that on notability, whether this information is due inclusion, doesn't it? Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Which part of WP:NNC do you not understand? Humanengr (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Secondary sources here are being used to guide UNDUE evaluation, not notability. --Masem (t) 18:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I was typing quickly. I meant WP:DUE here. I've revised my previous statement. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking about the first/initial comment in this thread, I do not think that quoting her directly was a problem. Some might perceive such quotation as an attempt to present her in a negative light (because they consider such views "extreme"), but this is not the case. As a politician, that is her views, and she wants them to be delivered and promoted. That could be the reason to only briefly summarize her views (instead of direct quotation), but quoting her directly is not a negative information and not a BLP violation. Overall, I think this is all a typical content dispute about a highly controversial politician, nothing else. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@My very best wishes — thx. Does the following satisfy for §'Establishment war machine'?:

[edited in view of cmt below] In her campaign launch, Gabbard called on everyone to take a stand against "neolibs and neocons” from both parties promoting regime changes and also against the foreign policy establishment for starting a ‘New Cold War' arms race.[1] In a campaign email released later that week, Gabbard spoke of the threat posed to freedom and democracy by “media giants ruled by corporate interests … in the pocket of the ‘establishment war machine'" which deploys journalism to "silence debate and dissent.”[2] She calls out ‘chickenhawks' … in both parties", in addition to corporate media and the military industrial complex for driving us to war "for their own power and profit.”[3]

References

  1. ^ "Tulsi Gabbard's Full Speech - Presidential Campaign Launch". 4President.org. February 2, 2019. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  2. ^ Cimmino, Jeffrey (February 10, 2019). "Gabbard Attacks the Media in Fundraising Email: 'Media Giants Ruled by Corporate Interests,' In the Pocket of the 'War Machine'". Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  3. ^ Cavuto, Neil (May 28, 2019). "Rep. Gabbard: Trump is making a mistake thinking North Korea is not a threat". Fox News. Retrieved August 16, 2019. [Neil Cavuto @3:35:] You had called out 'chickenhawks', as you called them ….

Humanengr (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this quotation properly summarizes her views on this subject? I am not sufficiently familiar with her views to make a qualified judgement, but it probably does. If so, then such quotation is fine. If not, one should cite something else. Briefly summarizing subject's views is usually better than providing a direct quotation though... My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
From my rather extensive readings, this does properly summarize. I edited the above to reduce the quotations a bit, but kept key phrasings, including that reflected in the revised title. Humanengr (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

MitskiEdit

Some unfounded allegations of rape/sexual abuse were put on Tumblr a short while ago and, despite almost all reliable sources concluding the allegations are false and were claims made by a mentally ill fan, users continue inserting the claims to Mitski's Wikipedia entry. It also seems to violate WP:BLPRS, because any reputable sources that have been cited are ones reporting the allegation's falsehood. This has happened before with artists including Isaac Brock, Conor Oberst, and John Darnielle, and the allegations in those cases were removed. Unless a reputable source corroborating the allegations against Mitski emerges, they should be kept off of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trvrplk (talkcontribs) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Asha RangappaEdit

Activist has re-added the subject's dob multiple times. No reliable sources apparently exist; the best source is maybe a mention on twitter. I don't want to edit war myself, and at this point I feel like I'm involved, can someone else go take a look? --valereee (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, despite her or his stated reluctance, has been edit warring with me as a quick glance at the Talk page on the Asha Rangappa will show. I've never heard of the article's subject before this current week. I've tried very hard to accommodate "V"s demands, I found a plethora of sites that had the subject's date of birth. None of them suited her or him. Finally, as Asha ("V" has insisted that the patronymic not be used, which is fine with me) is a particularly public person (i.e. ubiquitous talking head) presumably be paid for appearances on numerous networks. I went first to her Instagram account to which she directs her followers, and then to her Twitter account. On the latter, I found what are probably actual, rather than Internet "friends" sending her birthday greetings, to which she gave a friendly response and verified her birthday. I pasted the entire interchange to the Talk page. Valereee demanded the URL for the Twitter exchange. After I went back and looked it up again (and found that Twitter has an internal browser, so one can simply type in her name and the word "birthday," I tried to post that to the Talk page. Wikipedia automatically blocked that URL. In my 12,000 or so edits in as many years, I think I'd only posted something from Twitter once before and am very unfamiliar with that service. So I reposted it but modified it by putting the word "twitter" in parentheses to see if that would avoid the block and satisfy "V", and let "V" know that I'd modified the URL and the reason why. "V" could have simply eliminated the parens and gone straight to see the exchange, with her or his own eyes, that I'd already posted in toto, and which AR had posted to her long-existing, password-protected, Twitter account. Again "V" didn't find that sufficient, and stated that we really didn't need a D.O.B. in the article, and once again reverted my edit. I had already spent a couple of hours searching for something that would satisfy "V" and realized that might be impossible, so reverted her or his deletion. Then "V" came to the notice board to get a referee to decide the issue, which I gather might be motivated by "I don't like it." I should note also that a reliably sourced and notable statement made by the article's subject which I'd posted to the article was deleted around the same time by an IP editor from an IP address originating from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that has very infrequently used to make Wikipedia postings. "V" has removed the DOB as posted by another editor before, on March 6. When I first looked at the article, a few days ago, I had also corrected inaccuracies. I note that Valaree, back in March when first posting to the article, had eliminated another source as being unreliable while retaining the bio info that was sourced to it. One edit made by "V" was solely to change the spelling of the word "graduate," to graduatee, which doesn't exist in the English language, but may possibly be a transliteration from Hindi (see https://dict.hinkhoj.com/graduatee-meaning-in-hindi.words). "V" has also eliminated non-notable info in the article. I did so too since it mentioned Asha's a vegetarian which is possibly a description of the majority of the subcontinent's ethnic population (I'm a vegetarian, and don't feel the preference is particularly notable these days.) If "V" had not quickly reverted my DOB edit, I probably never would have returned to the article, as I didn't have it on my watch list. This is possibly more than anyone needs to read to come to a conclusion, so I'll stop here, but feel that the issue may be one of "article ownership" rather than sourcing. My thanks to any editor leaving feedback. Activist (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Not saying I couldn't have accidentally inserted 'graduatee' into an article, totally could have after a couple glasses of wine, but I can't find it. Diff? Not sure what the point of the Hindi question is. --valereee (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:DOB requires the birth date to be widely published in reliable sources or reasonably inferred that the subject does not object to the information being public. I'm not sure a Twitter post would qualify as that, especially if she is using it to communicate with friends and acquaintances. Also, I don't see the need for the month and day, especially for a subject of relatively low notability. That information should be further discussed before being reinserted. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert Asha's Twitter feed shows that she is being followed by 380,917 persons. Activist (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert I'm pleased that Valereee confesses that she or he inserted a non-English word for a correct one as her or his entire edit to an article, which would include writing a subject line and hitting "publish," explaining that two (?) glasses of wine could be the cause of such actions. I don't drink, so I don't have personal experience that would be helpful here though it would seem quite possible if the editor weighed about 75# and had a bad liver. As far as characterizing anything on Twitter as the basis for the removal of Asha's birth date that the article's subject herself acknowledged on Twitter, Valereee goes on to edit a post that I'd initiated by changing my words "Asha alleged, without providing any evidence, that child sexual trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was able to bribe New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center guards to 'look the other way,' thus allowing him to commit suicide," Valereee instead writing, "Asha theorized on Twitter that the 'simplest explanation' child sexual trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was able to commit suicide was to bribe New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center guards to 'look the other way'." I had written my edit to avoid plagiarism. Valereee's edit both quoted precisely from the text, which could be construed as plagiarism, and directly acknowledged Twitter as a reliable source. So Valaree's rationale for her or his objections to both my "good faith" edits in question seem odd at minimum. It would be at diff 910545989, 12 August 20:33 (mine) and 21:33 (Valereee's). I "theorized" that the problem here might be article "ownership," rather than accuracy and reliability. It's just a theory, of course, and I didn't even do it on Twitter. Now to the subject of the propriety of birth dates of children on the article, I removed the name of her son and his birthdate, sua sponte, though they were reliably sourced, because I didn't think they were important to the article and to accommodate Valereee. For some reference a moment ago, I went to Donald Trump's article and his son Barron, the same age as Asha's son, has a name and birthdate. Then I went to Chelsea Clinton's article, which I find does not have the names of her three children, but does have each of their birth dates. If we were compelled or advised to remove such names and birthdates, that would almost certainly affect millions of articles. Lastly, Valereee has taken many other editors of Asha's article to task and has regularly done many reverts, and left notes of caution throughout the article about the subject, because, legitimately I assume, she or he notes that Rangappa is a patronym, and Asha is properly referred to by her given name, rather than by her father's name. So Valereee has reverted the edits of others (not mine, as I've always respected Valereee's wishes and claimed authority on the matter). You might treat that issue lightly, and do the same. I personally don't care which name Asha prefers. Given all this, I hope you will evaluate your conclusions in light of the above, though whether you keep them intact or modify them is entirely up to you. P.S. I've always been a Dilbert fan, reading that strip and Doonesbury, thence tossing the comics into the recycling. Have a good day. Activist (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Lara St. JohnEdit

Jascha Brodsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lara St. John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Curtis Institute of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like to reopen this issue. My minor efforts to update a few WP pages with a recent news story were repeatedly deleted, based on the incorrect assertion that they were defamatory or inadequately substantiated. Why has the similar news about Placido Domingo been allowed to remain on WP when it is also based on one major source -- the investigative piece from the AP? The circumstances are nearly identical, other than that Jascha Brodsky is long deceased and less famous than Domingo. The editorial reasoning that led to the deletion of the Brodsky/St. John story would suggest that the Domingo story should be deleted as well. Deckoffa (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deckoffa. The answer is simple. That info violates policy on several levels, but the primary ones are WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. In the case of such people, we don't list criminal allegations, regardless of whether they were reported in the news. These allegations can have serious repercussion on both the person and their families/acquaintances, etc... We're not a news organization, so we can wait. If the allegations become a conviction in court, and is written about in reliable sources, then we can add it. For the case of Domingo, you're exactly right. He is far more famous, and so falls under the exception to these rules, for which, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In short, if someone is famous enough, and there are allegations being talked about all over the place, there is no point in tying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. The very notoriety of the allegations are enough to include even before a verdict is pronounced. Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK, the primary person accused was long dead by the time the public accusations were made so the idea of a court case to establish guilty makes no sense. Likewise they were long past WP:BDP so BLP issues don't arise in relation to them although they may in relation to other people including the accuser but also anyone else involved (I know some of the previous attempts specifically accused some named living individuals of failing to adequately deal with complaints) as I mentioned before. However we still need adequate sourcing to establish significance. Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking on BLP applicabilityEdit

Valve Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) specifically the section Allegations of mistreatment of transgendered employee.

This company faced a lawsuit from a transgendered individual which was reported in RS for the video gaming industry. (Surprisingly?) the name of the individual was not named by any of these RSes, though the name is discoverable through court documents. We have taken steps to trip the full name out since court documents are not acceptable for this type of naming (particularly with trans individuals), but a fair question now is related to BLP. This person lost their case, so it had no significant effect on the company. The case is hard to discover outside the period it happened, there wasn't a mass rush of "Valve is anti-LGBTQ!" complaints or the like. So I am wondering if it is just better not to mention it at all in the interests of BLP. This is not to whitewash the legal claim away from Valve, but companies get sued all the time and we don't report every lawsuit, unless it becomes newsworthy, and I think this is just cause to remove.

On that same matter, should revdel be used to remove the edits with that name on both mainspace and talkpage? --Masem (t) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section about the law suit. It simply didn't have enough impact on the company as a whole to be mentioned.
I believe that the person you are talking about is otherwise non notable.
I'd be surprised if people objected to deleting revisions that contain the name (or other personal information) of non notable individuals. If it is not the preferred name (e.g. a pre-transition name) then it should definitely be removed. Nick Humley (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The section has been removed, I think that's a good decision. I don't think revdel is needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Support the removal of the section, for WP:BALASP reasons, given the limited, and unsustained, coverage. I don't, however, see that the material meets any of the criteria at WP:CRD; and do not support revdel. - Ryk72 talk 16:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Best way to display birth year and age correctlyEdit

When doing a DYK review, I stumbled upon Alina Morse. From the sources published about her, we can (WP:CALC) with certainty say that she was born in 2005 because two sources from 2019 called her 13 and 14 years old and 2005 is the only year for which both can be true. However, the infobox uses {{birth year and age}} and thus displays "2005 (age 13–14)" when we know she is 14 as of 11 June 2019. Is there a template that handles such cases? {{age as of date}} renders 14–15 which of course is also incorrect. Regards SoWhy 09:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be inclined to replace the template with "2005" so no age is shown. That's on the basis that showing 13–14 seems silly although I know, for example, 43–44 might be shown for a similar case with an older person. Some complex wikitext might handle showing the range before June and the higher age after June, but that seems pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Birth based on age as of date}} is the template you want.--Auric talk 18:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Auric: Not really, because it would give me "2004/2005 (age 14–15)" when I know based on the other sources that her birth year has to be 2005. I would need a {{birth based on age as of two dates}} template but that does not exist, does it? Regards SoWhy 15:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jacobin on Andy NgoEdit

In Andy Ngo#Confrontations with antifascist activists, this article[80] from Jacobin Magazine is used as a source for this material: In addition, according to Jacobin, friends of two activists said that they had to go into hiding after Ngo revealed their names because they became subjects of harrassment. Connor Smith, a Portland DSA member, has accused Ngo of recording and publishing a sign-in sheet with names of members of the organisation during one of their events, and claimed that as a result he received threatening messages. Jacobin does have an editorial board listed on their website ([81]), and the author of this article, Arun Gupta, appears to be a professional journalist who has written for other publications ([82], [83], [84], [85]). However, I've seen very little to convince me that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and this article in particular is written with an obvious agenda. It begins by criticizing the mainstream media's coverage of Ngo, and the first claim in the article is supported only by this: Friends of two other activists claim they went into hiding after Ngo spread their names and they became targets of harassment. (for the second, the author appears to have actually spoken to Connor Smith, so that at least is a more direct claim). I'd like to see other editors' opinions on this. Is this Jacobin article reliable for these claims? And if it is, does including second-hand accusations from "friends of two activists" violate BLP? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would think that Jacobin is the type of partisan source that we should not be relying on as a sole source for claims about a living person. Unless there's any other sources reporting this material, it might not be duly-weighted anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Without any corroboration of the claims from a more "mainstream" source, this feels UNDUE, and the type of material BLP would caution against including for lack of sourcing. --Masem (t) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I also think that their statement is ambiguous. Are they saying that the two friends were harrassed? Or are they saying that the friends said that the activists were harrassed? Hard to tell from what they wrote. So in addition to being from non-RS, it's not even clear what they are saying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Get an additional source or drop it. O3000 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

JMSNEdit

You have the wrong age on my wikipedia. The birthday is February 6, 1987

Let me know if you need any more info please.

I am Christian Berishaj the Artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.25.109 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the 1983 birth year category. I could not find any other mention of current age or birth date. The birthday could be added if a reliable source is provided. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gary NullEdit

Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have received a threat from an attorney concerning this page. Best I can figure, this dif removed the offending content. Please see the talk page. If someone could look at the competing versions and compare them to the actual sources, I'd be much obliged.-- Dlohcierekim 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)