Jump to content

Talk:British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 126: Line 126:
* '''Oppose''' I'd probably support merging that article, but not here. It's too little about the BC HRT, too much about Jessica Yaniv. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I'd probably support merging that article, but not here. It's too little about the BC HRT, too much about Jessica Yaniv. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
** Once you exclude all the transphobic abuse and allegations against Yaniv, there's precious little to justify an article about the person themselves. I believe they are not known publicly for anything other than the tribunal case. Correct me if I've missed something. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
** Once you exclude all the transphobic abuse and allegations against Yaniv, there's precious little to justify an article about the person themselves. I believe they are not known publicly for anything other than the tribunal case. Correct me if I've missed something. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::* You say "transphobic abuse", others say "dangerous predator, discrediting the entire issue". I think they have a point. As noted elsewhere, I doubt if WP can do anything useful with this subject, as the constraints it has for good broad reasons make it incapable of dealing approporiately with a narrow case such as this. But dig deeper - there's a whole lot more than waxing involved here. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 20:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:00, 3 August 2019

WikiProject iconCanada: British Columbia Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


JY Section

Hello! It's been a while since I visited this article. I was surprised to see that the "JY" section has been largely re-written in a way that doesn't convey what RS state. (For example, there were sixteen cases filed, not one as the article currently reflects.) If there's no good reason for this, I'll be bold and put in much of the removed material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Much of what was removed was excessive detail and poorly sourced— to primary sources or unreliable sources — and should not be restored without both better sourcing and consensus. (Much of it was also poorly written, with random scare quotes, etc, although that would be easier to fix.) If the bit about filing 16 complaints can be sourced, it might be worth re-adding, although currently I'm only seeing it in the Post Millennial, which seems like a weak and biased source (cited in all of seven articles at the moment), and sites like LifeSite which are unreliable per past discussions on WP:RSN, i.e. the sourcing for it seems weak. -sche (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist article used in this article as Cite #12 states: "Over a dozen cases brought by jy against other women who offer Brazilian-waxing services continue." It may not specifically say 16 but surely it would be safe to state that there are over 12 cases filed and they are currently pending. I'll go through and make some revisions later. Well-sourced, of course. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's accurate that they are still pending at this point. I think it's a reach to include this in the first place. How is this important information for understanding the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal? Nblund talk 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need not be accurate up to the minute. This means that from time to time, Wikipedia may be "behind the curve" of current events but that's not a bad thing - and entirely in line with WP's mission. That being said, I'll appropriately couch it... saying something to the effect that there were at least twelve cases still pending as of December 2018. As to why it's relevant - this is definitely a notable BCHRT case. In fact, it may be the *most* notable out of the listed cases if only because it received substantial coverage both inside and outside of Canada. I don't see any reason to tell a partial story when it comes to this case. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be accurate, period. The dearth of reliably sourced coverage leads me to believe that it probably isn't all that prominent - and I'm actually kind of unsure that this case belongs. I'm struggling to find WP:RS coverage outside of a handful of news stories from last December, and none of them appear to include useful information related to the BCHRT like the outcomes of the other cases. Are you aware of some additional in-depth coverage? Nblund talk 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any issue with stating that, as of December 2018, there were at least twelve other complaints pending? This is directly from the source that's used in the article, The Economist, which is regarded as a reliable source. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not? I'm still a little confused as to why it's informative to mention 1 suit that was dismissed and 12 others that are of indeterminate status. Nblund talk 21:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. The disposition status of the cases (one case was withdrawn, over twelve still pending) doesn't bear on whether it should be included in the encyclopedia. Pending suits are included regularly on Wikipedia, if they are notable, and there's no guideline or policy to the contrary. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS. There's no specific policy prohibiting us from adding these cases to the entry for Canada, waxing or transwomen either, but I'm sure you can recognize why an otherwise notable event might not be WP:DUE in any tangentially related entry. The fact that the cases are pending (and no reliable sources appear to be following up means that this doesn't really tell us anything about the BCHRT. "There's no rule against it" is not really a justification for inclusion. Nblund talk 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to try to ascertain the reliability of this source, beyond noticing that it too is little-cited (it's never been discussed at WP:RSN AFAICT; this is the staff), but this Nelson Star article from January says two things which may be of interest: that respondents reopened the withdrawn waxing case, and that there were "14 similar complaints against other waxing service providers at about the same time this one was filed in March 2018" of which "Cousineau noted that three cases are proceeding through the 'regular process,' while the 11 others are in abeyance pending resolution of these." I share Nblund's concern that because the coverage of this is scant, there could be questions about its importance ("due-ness"), but I don't see a problem with spending a sentence or two on it. -sche (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NBlund, I don't understand your reliance on WP:DUE. WP:DUE addresses the weight we give to minority or fringe viewpoints. That's not the situation here. The JY case is notable (covered by reliable sources) and relevant to the topic, which is the BCHRT. I see no reason to hold off from covering the case to the extent that it is covered by reliable sources; which is really quite extensive for this type of case, by the way. You may be looking for the up-to-the-minute coverage of a high-profile entertainment star defendant (OJ Simpson, R. Kelly, etc) but those kind of situations are the exception, not the rule. We have articles for many pending lawsuits in which there are few "news ticker" updates, partially because lawsuits tend to move at a glacial pace and without rockstar drama there may well be nothing to report for long stretches of time. I've had cases where nothing happened for over a year. But in any event, there has been plenty of coverage for the various JY matters, and much more than you would expect from your "garden variety" lawsuit. It's made especially impressive because much of the business of the BCHRT is not open to the public, so coverage would be harder to come by. At the very least, I don't understand the proposition that one JY matter is notable but the existence of the other 12+ are not. It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing, right? Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, due weight/npov (along with WP:NOTEVERYTHING) caution against including barely-relevant information in articles. Notability isn't graded on a curve, and information shouldn't be included unless it tells us something encyclopedic about the subject. I still haven't seen any suggestion as to what exactly we should learn from the fact that someone filed one or several suits. I agree with -sche that there's probably not a major harm in including a couple of sentences - so go for it as long as you can keep it minimal. Nblund talk 14:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's far more that I could say than just this, but at a bare minimum, if you read this Wikipedia article as-is you would come to the conclusion that a single complaint was filed and that it was now withdrawn. That is not only an incorrect telling of these events, it's contradicted by the reliable sources we use in the article. That's reason alone to include this. There are plenty more reasons of course, including the fact that this is a core element of the story and not some barely-notable factoid. I'll probably get to revising the article sometime on the weekend. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason the person's name was removed? Every news article mentions the name. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPNAME Nblund talk 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JY is an extremely high-profile individual. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, she isn't. She was identified only by her initials in the press, she is known only for a single event, and nothing is lost by simply not naming her at all. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Nblund talk 00:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there are quite a few articles that refer to JY. There are also RSes covering the litigation spawned against Twitter due to fallout from this incident, which may bear a mention. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The two reliable sources we cite state that her name was intentionally concealed, and there's no reason to use it here. Are you saying we should now consider adding a lawsuit against Twitter to the entry for BCHRT? How is that relevant to this entry? Nblund talk 00:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like how even on Wikipedia there are people that will bend over backwards to protect JY just because she has connections in the tech industry. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a policy violation you'd like to correct, please be conservative and only make the corrections necessary. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting theory, but i'm "bending over backwards" because Wikipedia has a responsibility to avoid needlessly publicizing the name of a private figure. Her name does not appear in any reliable source, and she is barely relevant to this article to begin with. BLP applies to talk pages, blogs and right-wing rags are not reliable sources. Save it for gab or 4chan or whatever - this isn't the place. Nblund talk 01:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:DeltaQuad, can you link me to the Wikipedia policy which states that we must censor an individual's name if that name is censored in a court proceeding, regardless of whether the full name is used in a reliable source? I also notice that you oversighted about 20 edits on this talk and I'm not sure why. JY's name was not used in any of them except my most recent one. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPNAME seems to be fairly clearly applicable here. The mainstream reliable sources I've seen have only referred to her as JY, and we don't lose any useful context by following suit or leaving the name out entirely. A number of the oversighted edits came from an IP user trying to edit war the name onto the page. The relevant discussion is still all here, and the page now mentions the other suits, so I think we've addressed the core issue. Nblund talk 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPNAME states that it's "often preferable" to omit names in a situation such as this. It does not say that including a name should result in immediate blocking and oversight of the edit. There's a pretty big gap between the preference described in WP:BLPNAME and a hardline policy position like that. So I'm wondering what, exactly, DeltaQuad is referencing in terms of policy here. There may be something I'm not familiar with. P.S. I hope DeltaQuad is a Star Trek Voyager reference, that was one of my favorite shows of all time! Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, as far as (not) including the name in the article, this is textbook BLPNAME, ticking every box: "a private individual" "discussed primarily in terms of a single event" whose name "has not been widely disseminated" and "has been intentionally concealed", where omitting it "does not result in a significant loss of context". (For comparison, Dril's article doesn't name him as far as I see, and his name came out as part of a notable event, and the article on Mattress Performance didn't name the alleged rapist for years, until he'd made e.g. a media appearance and counter-case naming himself.) Under circumstances like this where there's little chance the name will get added, and because talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, I have seen names hidden (hatted, removed, revdeled, or oversighted) even off of talk pages, especially if they seem to have been added to try to out the person (and in this case caution seems important since there seems to have been an off-wiki effort to out the person). Perhaps revdeling or something would have been sufficient, but I dunno if quibbling over that is productive. Getting back onto the broader topic at hand, I'll see if I could find any more documentation of the re-opening of the case, or the abeyance of other cases, etc. -sche (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The concern I have, among others, is that even the initials for this individual have been scrubbed from the article. It's unclear if we can even use the initials to refer to this person, and I think that needs to be cleared up before we go much further. Aside from that, BLPNAME is framed in purely discretionary terms subject a weighing of factors involved, yet it seems that name mentions are being shut down without discussion. So I also wonder if there's another policy here that I'm not familiar with. For all I know, there may be, and if there is I wouldn't want to run afoul of it. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"JY" is still used all over the talk page, so the initials are definitely fine here. I also think they're fine in the article if they're needed for clarity, but I removed them because they seemed unnecessary once I rewrote the paragraph. I don't think you need to worry as long as you're sticking to information that appears in high-quality reliable sources. The IP editor was not blocked for merely using JY's name, and the deleted stuff was not anything that anyone could possibly construe as a good faith discussion about article content. Nblund talk 02:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment refers solely to any full name. Oversight Policy #2 is the reason. Any mention in a source is considered unreliable as the original source (court document) did not even release the name. Just as if a child was arrested, the Youth Criminal Justice Act prohibits the publication of the name, and therefore no one has a reliable source. We frequently remove those also. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I don't think we should necessarily comply with a particular country's redaction laws but you make a good point about the name being unavailable through reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose would that serve, exactly? Nblund talk 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same purpose as using anyone's name on Wikipedia. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC) For the record, this is the court order that lifted the publication ban: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/jul/147_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_2019_BCHRT_147.pdf Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the BCHRT, how does a name add anything of substance to the article? I see that the publication ban has been lifted, but "we're legally permitted to do so" is not a reason to use someone's name. JY is still a person known for a single event whose name has not been widely disseminated. As -sche pointed out: we sometimes leave out names even when those names are public. Nblund talk 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the threshold would be for "wide dissemination" but a search for "Jessica Yaniv waxing" yields over 40,000 results on Google. If that's not wide dissemination then I don't know what is. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC) It should be noted that Jessica Yaniv is not a low-profile individual as that term would be understood on Wikipedia. They are a fairly well-known activist who recently appeared before the Canadian Parliament (I think it was that body.) In any event, this is hardly the case where Wikipedia would be naming some random individual that has not been in the media and will never be again aside from this one event. As a well-known activist, I don't think the BLPNAME criteria would apply. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Widely disseminated meaning "wide dissemination" in reliable sources. Again: this already seem tangential to the article at best, why are we going out of our way to publicly identify a person who has tried to keep their identity private? What substantive information would we be adding that is relevant to the BCHRT? What's the point? Nblund talk 17:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been heating up recently because the hearings just concluded. (I'm not sure if all of them have concluded, but at least one did.) It's already being spread by reliable sources, and when the decisions come down, I'd like to expand the article with a more thorough summary of the cases. This is already shaping up to be the most notable issue addressed by the BCHRT to date. I don't see a reason why we need to censor Yaniv's name when the court unsealed it, when reliable sources are covering it, and when Yaniv themselves is in the public eye as an activist independently of this event. But of course, because people had been oversighted in the past over this, I wanted to hash it out on the talk page well before I make edits. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does her name add to the entry? Nblund talk 03:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's right there in the case caption, and Wikipedia is not censored. It's also heavily covered in reliable sources, and Jessica Yaniv is also a well-known activist. I can't see any reason not to include it, policy or otherwise. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This essay sort of gets at why this isn't a reason to include something. There's nothing censorious about avoiding plastering a person's name all over Wikipedia for no reason. Maybe post at the BLP noticeboard if you really think this is essential, but if you can't think of any encyclopedic reason to include the name, then why are you worried about it? Nblund talk 01:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did give you several encyclopedic reasons, though. "But it's true!" was never one of my points. What would be your rationale for keeping it out? Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed it, but from what I can tell you've said: "Wikipedia is not censored", "it's heavily covered in reliable sources" and "I can't see any reason not to include it". None of those arguments address the fundamental question of how including her name would be informative. This article is about the BCHRT. What do readers learn about the BCHRT from knowing JY's full name?
The reasons not to include are that JY is a private individual who is known only for a single event, who has apparently tried to avoid having her identity publicized. Her case may be of some passing interest, but I don't see how her name is, and err in favor of privacy with BLPs - so that really places the burden on you to show why this is necessary information. Like I said: if you really think this is essential info, maybe take it to a noticeboard, but I'm not convinced of the need and I think it's pretty irresponsible to include it simply because we can. Nblund talk 01:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a presumption that we're going to talk about the "who, what, when, where, and why" when covering events, just as all other encyclopedias do. Of course, there are sometimes reasons to omit names, but I don't see a case for that here. WP:BLPNAME is designed to protect low-profile individuals who would never be known except outside of one event. In this case, Jessica Yaniv is a well-known activist who has spoken to the Canadian Parliament and who is apparently a Miss British Columbia contestant. It's hard to say that an outspoken activist who gives public comment at a legislative session is, in any way, a "low-profile" person. So I think that deals with (1) why names are important for articles and (2) why Jessica is not a low-profile individual to whom BLPNAME applies. But if you need more convincing on that first point, consider that this is easily the most high-profile case that BCHRT has dealt with so far, and that profile will only raise once the decisions come down. This is actually going to be a fairly influential case in Canadian law, which is why I'm holding off until we get the decision. As far as I know, this is the only BCHRT case that has ever featured allegations of discrimination in this type of intimate situation, and it will deal with the intersection of religious objections vs. non-discrimination law. Wikipedia would be a terrible research resource if we could talk about the case only in general terms, avoiding the discussion of names. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any serious legal analyses of this case? The coverage I'm seeing seems fairly limited, and most of it is coming from questionable sources with a sensational bent. The entry for the Supreme Court doesn't mention the full names of most of the plaintiffs in landmark cases - it's clearly not a necessity to know that Jane Roe's real name was Norma McCorvey in order to understand the basics of how Roe V. Wade changed the law. Nblund talk 15:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a preliminary matter, the standard for notability and inclusion here is not whether there is "serious legal analysis" of the case, but rather whether reliable sources have covered it. I do think you'll get more legal analysis, though, when the decision is handed down. That's part of the reason why I'm waiting until the decision has been released and outlets have had a chance to cover that decision. I just wanted to get this name issue out of the way well in advance. In any event, the Row v. Wade article does include Norma's full name. I'm having a hard time finding any of these cases that don't contain the plaintiff's full name, in fact. Clearly the presumption is to include this information. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC) One last thought - Roe v. Wade isn't a representative sample because, well, Roe v. Wade is the name of the case. The Jessica Yaniv case is captioned "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons." If we can't say Yaniv's name, we can't use the official case caption, which would be silly. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Roe V. Wade does include a full name, but the article on the judicial body that heard her case doesn't. The SCOTUS article doesn't really name any plaintiffs, or discuss their personal biographies, because they are sort of outside of the scope for an article on the judicial body.

Legal analyses aren't a prerequisite for notability, but if you intend to talk about the legal implications of the case, then you're going to need to provide sources that support those claims. I'm not seeing it. If that changes, maybe it would be a discussion worth having - but right now the article lacks a lot of general info about the BCHRT. Nblund talk 15:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason you aren't seeing sources that discuss the legal implications is because there isn't a decision yet. Which is exactly why I'm waiting. Anyway, trying to draw an analogy between SCOTUS and BCHRT breaks down when you consider the nature of each body, the age of each body, and the relative number of cases each body has handled. Direct access to BCHRT by litigants came about in 2003; SCOTUS has been around since 1789. Of course the BCHRT article would contain a list of highlights, while such a thing would be impossible for SCOTUS. Also, SCOTUS addresses a wide variety of cases relating to constitutionality, while BCHRT addresses only human rights issues. We can't use the way the SCOTUS page looks as a template for the BCHRT page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've blanked the section in discussion here as it's an unresolved legal tribunal in which all parties have a right to WP:PRIVACY and for which WP:TOOSOON applies along with WP:NOTNEWS. Should the tribunal issue a decision I'd suggest very carefully revisiting this issue with the rights of all the individuals involved to privacy being respected. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that blanking because I don't believe your interpretation of our BLP/Privacy policy applies. Can you quote exactly what you're relying on? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP/N. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm looking for is a specific quotation from a Wikipedia policy, as I do not believe your interpretation to be correct. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this discussion ultimately went nowhere. The BLP policy protects information such as, and I quote from the policy, "full names and addresses." It does not, in any way, state that we should censor information if it could somehow be matched up with a living person with enough research. I've asked repeatedly for a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy stating such, and as of yet, nobody has been able to provide it. That's because it doesn't exist. Not only does it not exist in any Wikipedia policy, it's also a bad and unworkable idea. By that logic, we would be essentially unable to cover any subject in which a non-famous BLP is involved. I think we should follow Wikipedia policy. I don't think we should use tortured interpretations of policy.
I'm not conceding the point, by the way, on the public figure issue. I believe they are. They've given at least one media interview on the waxing cases recently, and they have released public statements about this cases. This is an individual who engages with the public on this topic and are, in no way, trying to keep their involvement in this case hidden or under the radar.
But, that's beside the point. Like I discussed earlier, I don't intend on adding more information to the article until the decision has been handed down. In the meantime, though, there has been coverage of this in Forbes and by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The amount of reliable sources have only increased and are clearly demonstrating that this is the most famous case that the BCHRT has dealt with.
I suppose we'll need to cross these bridges again when the time comes. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS - just because coverage exists in the media does not confer encyclopedic reliability on an event. Especially when BLP concerns are in play. Until a result is reached, this is WP:ROUTINE - a human rights tribunal hears a human rights case. That's not encyclopedically relevant; that's literally just the tribunal doing their job. When a decision is reached, if there is reliable coverage, it might be WP:DUE - until then it's literally nothing Wikipedia should comment on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my last post, "I don't intend on adding more information to the article until the decision has been handed down." Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that there's no explicit policy prohibiting this content, but WP doesn't really provide exhaustive lists of what not to do. The general idea behind BLP and policies like WP:AVOIDVICTIM is "when in doubt, leave it out" - and this is consistent with that approach.
For what it's worth: the CBC story is helpful, but opinion pieces (like the one in Forbes) are generally not considered reliable sources for statements of fact. I agree that waiting for a decision is probably the best way to approach this, and there's very little harm in waiting for solid sourcing. Nblund talk 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario

An editor recently reverted my addition of information in the BC Waxing cases claiming my info was from some case in Ontario. I'm unaware of someone from Ontatio filing complaints against 16 salons and the news article cited both referred to JY and the identified information. No, the information was not related to this editor's original research into a case in Ontario. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Calgary Sun source: "In May, it was reported that a transgender woman was seeking $50,000 after being denied service at Mad Wax, a body hair removal business in Windsor, Ont. Jason Carruthers, Mad Wax’s president, told the Windsor Star at the time that the only employee working that day was a Muslim woman who refrains from physical contact with men outside family. And the only staff member who did male waxing was on sick leave." - this is a different case. Nblund talk 04:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you would have seen if you bothered to actually read the revision comment, citation 14 contains the information I introduced and is about the BC cases. Next time read before you revert. Thank you for wasting my time. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did the sentence cite the Calgary sun? In any case: reiterating the hearing, including speculation about JY's genitals, is really gratuitous here. This entry is about the BCHRT. Nblund talk 12:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund, I have to disagree. Information about pertinent cases is perfectly relevant to the BCHRT article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a thread at the BLP noticeboard to request outside input, but I'm removing it in the mean time until a consensus develops. Frankly, its seems like were devolving in to a WP:COATRACK and WP:NOTNEWS issue here by trying to include a blow-by-blow account of the hearings. Nblund talk 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the factual and legal issues that were raised in a case doesn't constitute a "blow-by-blow account of the hearings." It's basic, fundamental information that you would expect to find in relation to any case. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, these are comments made by the subjects of the complaint during a single day of hearings. They're not facts so much as disputed claims by one party in a heated dispute that were repeated by a right-leaning news outlet without any apparent fact checking. I can't find any other mainstream coverage of this, and we're far afield of anything relevant to the BCHRT. I wouldn't expect to visit the entry for this tribunal and read a full page of detailed anecdotes with no substantive information on structure or case law. Nblund talk 15:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations in a case are important to a discussion of the case, even if they were only made on a single day of hearing or if they're disputed. It's far more than just an anecdote. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I find it hilarious that you moved the goal posts, nblund. First you feigned concern that the citation didn't contain the information given and now you feign concern that the information given is improper under BLP. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's almost like the edit had more than one problem. Nblund talk 18:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't raise more than one problem. You waited until your non-issue was addressed then panicked and came up with another hours later. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

A current case with a lot of media attention, but too little meaningful case related content to justify an article, when the varied and colourful personal pundit opinions about the trans woman raising the case are excluded. Fæ (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'd probably support merging that article, but not here. It's too little about the BC HRT, too much about Jessica Yaniv. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once you exclude all the transphobic abuse and allegations against Yaniv, there's precious little to justify an article about the person themselves. I believe they are not known publicly for anything other than the tribunal case. Correct me if I've missed something. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "transphobic abuse", others say "dangerous predator, discrediting the entire issue". I think they have a point. As noted elsewhere, I doubt if WP can do anything useful with this subject, as the constraints it has for good broad reasons make it incapable of dealing approporiately with a narrow case such as this. But dig deeper - there's a whole lot more than waxing involved here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal&oldid=909196700"