Talk:Meghan Murphy

Choise of wording in last sentence

The last sentence of the article goes; On several occasions since August 2018, Murphy has been suspended from Twitter and asked to delete certain tweets about transgender issues that violated it's hateful conduct policy.[38].

I have re-read the line a few times to be sure that I did not misinterpret it, as I reacted on the by me bolded word "hateful" describing Twitter's conduct policy, wherefore I wonder if it is the wording of Meghan or the wording of the writer of the article? If by Meghan, it should be within quotation or explained that it is her description of the policy. If however it is the choise of the creator of the article, then I believe it falls under weasel wording which would then make the word "hateful" inappropriate, as it goes against the neutral tone that should be kept in articles free from personal bias of the writer.

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, it's actually not Meghan or the person who edited it in, it's the wording twitters rules use to describe the specific section of the rules that she broke.ShimonChai (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that just yesterday after having gotten to bed, ugh. >.< I wish I could erase the post as it is a bit embarrassing in retrospect now, but, that's life. :P

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of first sentence

There's some pretty ugly tagging in the first sentence currently, due to an edit I made. I apologize for the cosmetics of it, but hopefully it won't last long, and the fact that it looks so gross will motivate its rapid repair. The problem was, that you had three references at the end of what is supposed to be the definition, and single most important sentence in the article, and none of the references support the statement made; they are all trivial mentions of Murphy, in articles about something else. I tagged them all {{failed verification}} for the lack of support, and {{better source}} for the need to have something more than just a tangential, trivial mention of Murphy. That makes for a horrible-looking first sentence, I'll admit. If someone wants to come along and just remove all three references, and all six tags completely, and replace it with one {{citation needed}}, I won't object. But those references really should not be there. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

First, I agree that none of them properly cite the first sentence due to the contents of the citations not being in the citation given. To fall inline with citations given:

"Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, and founder of Feminist Current, a feminist blog and podcast" (Note, this is just based on those citations given, not citations throughout the entire article.) Though, I disagree on the trivial part, The Globe and Mail as far as I know is reliable, and so is The New York Times, furthermore I couldn't find any ruling on "trivial" mentions disqualifying a citation from being used in either the better source template, nor in WP:NOTRS. ShimonChai (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ShimonChai, and thanks for your comments. G&M and NYT are both highly reliable sources, and AJ too, there is no question about that, but that's not the issue here. There's a statement about trivial mention somehwere; I'll try and find it. But basically, these all contain quotations by Murphy about some extraneous topic, and are not about her in any meaningful way, other than to identify who she is.

• I.e., in the G&M article about sexism in the workplace, several experts are queried, and each of the three have a one-sentence reply to the question, which is quoted, and they are each identified by name, position, and publication. They are quoting her own words, so it's WP:PRIMARY, and it's not clear whether they asked the respondents for their title, or simply looked it up on the web, in which case they are quoting a self-published source. This identification is barely more than some commenters provide in the Letters column at G&M (e.g., "Hilary Pearson", here). I'm not saying this absolutely cannot be used if there is nothing better, but it's a trivial mention of her position (the article is about something else) which description most likely comes from asking her, or looking at the blog.
• The NYT article is about Hugh Hefner, and contains one sentence, again by Megan Murphy, not written by others about her.
• The third reference is an interview with a Bangladeshi microfinance banker and Nobel prize winner, opining about responsibility for violence in Burma. This article has nothing to do with feminist politics. After the end of the interview with Yunus, there is a follow-up section with a teaser for the publication's weekly "Arena" column, and includes one sentence of quoting Murphy's opinion on the subject of this other column; again, this is a statement by her, not about her. She is identified, as any opinion source would be.

If these three articles, none of which are about Murphy in any substantial way beyond a trivial identification are the very best that can be done to verify the first sentence of the article, then it would be reasonable for someone to question whether Murphy is even notable enough to have an article. However, I don't believe there is a question about notability. That being the case, surely stronger references than these must exist. A truly secondary source, might be a G&M or NYT article about "opinion-shapers in radical feminism", where people (not employed or connected with Feminist Current) talk about Murphy perhaps comparing her to other writers, perhaps going into some analysis or evaluation of this generation of feminist opinion makers, or just anything, more than simply identifying her by name and position. That would be a substantive, independent, secondary source, which these three, imho, do not seem to be. I will try to find the "trivial mention" statement if I can, but even if I can't, surely we can do better than this. These sources are very weak on a number of accounts. (I'm still not bothered if someone just deletes all of them, and am tempted to do so myself, but would be better if someone else did.) Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

So, it turns out "trivial mention" is connected with Notability, not referencing. It is found in the first sentence in the section on significant coverage. There is also the essay, WP:Trivial mentions. So my objection to those references would have to be cast in some other way, than citing "trivial mention". I still think they're weak, but I'll have to find the right policy for it. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No volunteers so far, so went ahead and removed the references, and tagged the first sentence as {{cn}}. Mathglot (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist

An IP editor adjusted the first sentence of the article to read "Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist blog and podcast." The term TERF was just a piped link to the general page for "radical feminism" (as the article had previously linked). While it seems to me that the subject of this article is perhaps best known for her opposition to transgender rights, this edit seemed like an NPOV issue to me, since TERF is not a label of self-identification, but one applied by others who disagree with them. To be clear, I think given the prominence of this part of her politics, some mention of her stance would make sense in the introduction, but this exact wording did not seem the way to go about this, and particularly not via a piped link. Any thoughts on this? --Sauzer (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Those who accuse Murphy of being a "TERF" and persist on inserting the offensive term into the article are activist editors. However, 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. As a WP:BLP, every statement about her must be supported by reliable sources. And yes, injecting "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary" into the biography is a violation of WP:NPOV. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary describes themselves as a TERF on their user page. They should be forbidden from editing this page due to their non-neutral, hateful perspective.

The article has two components: how Meghan Murphy is a radical feminist and how she excludes trans people. It is inaccurate _not_ to refer to her as a TERF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talk • contribs)

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.

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. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket, what a mess all of this is.[1][2][3][4]. No wonder my sister dropped out of the drama. Jiminy Cricket, what a peculiar IP this is.[5]. I hope my sister has a CU run on it. Pyxis Solitary hasn't called herself a TERF. She says, "I am a Lesbian. I'm not Gay. I'm not Bisexual. I'm not Pansexual. I'm not Transgender. I'm not Transexual. I'm not Non-binary. I'm not Bigender. I'm not Skoliosexual. I am a homosexual female and the only thing fluid about me is blood, sweat, tears, and piss." 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.

You figure you're gonna be able to get Pyxis Solitary blocked or topic banned for objecting to the WP:LABEL of "TERF" being used to describe BLP subjects who object to the term, and for using the description "trans ideology" on the talk page? Uhhh, okay. Someone better look to penalize BBC News and The Times for using the terminology too.[6][7]. Ah, but I mustn't forget. Our Wikipedia articles say that the evil TERF people are apparently very powerful in the UK. There also exists all those articles criticizing Jessica Yaniv and how Yaniv's is questionably extending what trans rights entail, but that ain't nothing, I guess. Editors can't even achieve a consensus to categorize people as climate change deniers (a widely used term for a certain sector) because of "pejorative" arguments. Ah, but if there were a similar debate there on "TERF," most of the people there would support categorizing people as TERFs. Good luck with that.

You'll be lookin' to get Aeusoes1, EllsworthSK, Crossroads1, and Rhinocera blocked or topic banned for having different view points too, huh? Good luck with that.

There's somethin' else I think I wanted to say. Yessss, that's right. To save Fæ the trouble of snooping into my account, my sister is Flyer22 Reborn. Threaten me if ya like. Throw the DS on my talk page. Leave my sister out of it. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"Some of y'all call any lesbian a TERF", no, the only person publishing homophobic comments here is you. This puts you in conflict with the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, because you are (apparently) either trolling or making jokes at the expense of the LGBT+ community. Your behaviour here is offensive and disruptive and may cause distress to other editors, including those you are claiming to "defend" but are in practice canvassing to stir up dramah. I suggest you desist, preferably by taking this page off your watchlist. Thanks!

For anyone confused about the sources linked in the above comment, the BBC has never stated that a trans ideology exists, the link given discusses some offensive anti-trans slurs from "Fair Play for Women", an extremist anti-trans lobbyist group that has a long history of misgendering and attacking trans women on Twitter and attempting to remove any trans rights or equality legislation. Similarly the Times link is not a piece of Times journalism but an anti-trans lobbyist letter, with all recognisable names being those that are known to publish and support extreme anti-trans rhetoric. These are not sources that illuminate a Wikipedia article, apart from demonstrating TERF extremist views. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary describes themselves as a TERF on their user page. They should be forbidden from editing this page due to their non-neutral, hateful perspective.
#1 WP:NPA:  "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans."  You can read the rest in the policy.
#2 This article is a WP:BLP:  "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement....The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism...does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion...Avoid repeating gossip...Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources...BLPs should simply document what [reliable] sources say."  You can read the rest in the policy.
You think I should be banned from editing this page because I oppose the injecting of "TERF" into the BLP without reliable sources that describe her as a "TERF"? Because I enforce WP:NPV:  "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Avoid stating facts as opinions. Prefer nonjudgmental language."?
You think I should be banned from editing this BLP because I identify as a Lesbian and homosexual female? Go ahead. File a complaint against me. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that "While these feminists perceive the term to be a slur, mainstream feminists, other academics, and trans people have rejected this view.". It's not derogatory, it's descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You stated above that "she's against trans ideology", do you withdraw your claim that trans women are part of a "trans ideology" or that a "trans ideology" exists?

Using Wikipedia to promulgate damaging false claims about trans women is a problem, because your words on this page are in conflict with Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Any search for sources shows that it is only anti-trans lobbyists that promote a myth of a "trans ideology", and Wikipedia is not an open forum where transphobic or homophobic lobbyists are free to spam hostile attacks. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology"." You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. What I've found in: The American Spectator, The Times, New York Magazine, The Economist, The Herald, The Australian, Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Federalist, BBC News, Public Discourse, The Fifth Column, Spiked, First Things, The College Fix, The Bridgehead, Redline, Anglican Mainstream, Medium, Counter-Currents Publishing, Disclose.tv, Julie Bindel, etc. etc. etc., say otherwise.
You want to bring up alerts? How about this one: "Canvassing insinuation: Re your comments in Articles for deletion/Get the L Out and Reliable sources/Noticeboard#UncommonGroundMedia. This is a formal request that you cease insinuating that I have engaged in canvassing: 1 and 2...."
You pushed the envelope once. Stop trying to intimidate me or bully me here or anywhere. Gaming with threats of Arbcom will backfire. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you are not collecting random sources for an article called Trans ideology, you are personally stating that trans women are part of a trans ideology. This is a misuse of Wikipedia, it is an attack against the LGBT+ community to use Wikipedia in this way. You are in contravention of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. As for your list of editorials by famously anti-trans lobbyists like Julie Bindel, that is evidence of anti-trans lobbyists attacking the very existence of trans women, not evidence that the trans community has a mysterious secret agenda and they are working to corrupt society, or abuse children, or rape lesbians, all types of fake news that you apparently want to see accepted on Wikipedia. Give over, this is hostile transphobic crap, and you should not publishing it as "fact" here.

As for canvassing, duh, the evidence is right above in the paragraph written by Halo Jerk, by pinging their chosen list of editors that they think might support their lobbying views. It's the very definition of canvassing and dramah-mongering. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. I am contradicting your "there is no such thing as "trans ideology"." As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Furthermore, WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Pyxis Solitary yak 11:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am uninterested in encouraging your deliberate tangents. Focus on the question: Do you withdraw your claim that trans women are part of a trans ideology? --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No editor owes you an answer to a personal question. Including me. Wikipedia is not your private battleground. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So that's a no then. You are stating that you will continue to misuse Wikipedia to deliberately spread the fake news meme that trans women are guilty of having a "trans ideology". --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So that's still a no then. You are stating that you will continue to misuse Wikipedia to deliberately spread the fake news meme that trans women are guilty of having a "trans ideology". Thanks for the clarification, it's always useful to have a black and white record of Wikipedia misuse and in this case deliberate and flagrant contravention of Arbcom discretionary sanctions. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sauzer: Putting aside the lobbying and canvassing of this thread by the usual suspects for a moment, a simple search for news articles about "Meghan Murphy" shows overwhelmingly only returns about her ban for hate speech on Twitter, the associated legal case and associated rejections by various notable institutions as a public speaker on feminism, because of her becoming famous for her hate speech on Twitter. Even this basic test of what Murphy is now most notable for, shows that her internet footprint and public interest coverage is all based on her hateful published views about trans women. This makes her the very definition of what it is to be known for TERF views, and so including a statement about her as a "trans exclusionary" or "anti-trans" notable person is entirely appropriate and extremely easy to reliably source with many, many reliable sources in the body of the article. If anything her campaigning against trans rights needs expansion.

I recommend that those tempted to edit-war over the inclusion of "trans", focus on sources first, as they make the emphasis needed in the lede very obvious. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"This makes her the very definition of what it is to be known for TERF views...." WP:UNDUE conclusions are definitely not acceptable in BLPs. Even if she is known for having opinions against transgender activism and transgender rights legislation, she is also known for having other views that have nothing to do with transgender. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, no she is not really known to most people for anything other than her Twitter ban for hate speech, deliberately and repeatedly misgendering trans women. That's what she does, and that's what this article needs to make clear in order to ensure a fair representation of the reliable source evidence. She's not just a TERF, the legal case makes her a poster girl example of being a TERF. --Fæ (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The Twitter lawsuit does not define the BLP. Her public statements about the sex industry preceded the Twitter case, as well as her opinions about male feminists, the sex industry, etc. You may want to pigeonhole Murphy, but that's not going to fly in the BLP. Do you need an Admin to explain the difference between POV and WP:PROPORTION. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Duh, "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" was literally my point, try reading it rather than just slagging me off and attacking my intelligence or experience. The vast majority of most widely read news articles of public interest are about Murphy's Twitter case and her subsequent rejection by multiple respected institutions for her hate speech. Her ranty blog and weird anti-trans rubbish that bills itself as somehow about women's rights, is all secondary chaff compared to that TERF footprint. Ranty pro-TERF editorials by famously anti-trans lobbyists and pundits are not "reliable, published material", it's just more social media click bait and lobbyist PR. --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)