Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Arvin Vohra

• Arvin Vohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 deniers

(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 (dc̄) 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?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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)

Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt

Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone using two IP accounts (so far) and visiting Wikipedia only to do so, has tried to add information about this man, stating (first time) that he has run brothels and (second time) sauna clubs, formatting the later entry to accentuate the brothel angle. I've tried to (first time) remove it as unsourced and (second time) tone this down a bit, but I wonder if it shouldn't be removed completely. My German is not good enough to evaluate the sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor must have confused the subject with Marcus Prinz von Anhalt. This person was adopted by Frederic and was the one reported as the owner of several brothels. After a cursory search, I found that Frederic did run sauna clubs. This source, for instance, reported that he owned several saunas in Dortmund. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

BC Trans waxing case

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)

(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)

Eva Bartlett

Eyes needed at this article, which has gone from

"Eva Karene Bartlett is a Canadian activist and blogger who covers the Middle East, particularly Palestine and Syria.[1] She writes op-eds for the Russian-funded television network RT.[2][3][4]" to

"Eva Karene Bartlett is a journalist and activist who was born in Michigan, USA, but grew up in Ontario, Canada, and holds dual-citizenship for both Canada and the US. She was an Honours student in high school." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor Nozoz keeps edit-warring absurd puffery and fringey drivel to the Bartlett page while removing reliably sourced content (content that was agreed to be placed in the article via a RfC). The page is subject to DS and 1RR, yet the editor keeps edit-warring. The editor has near-exclusively edited pages that relate to Russian foreign policy issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is Nozoz. What Snooganssnoogans claims is false. I have vastly improved the page with superior sources, more information, and less biased language, and have undone vandalism that was done to the page. The sources that were used before regularly has no relation to the statements they were following, and they were often entirely fringe / smear sources. I have added sources which are reliable, often being Eva Bartlett's own articles where she says the very thing the Wikipedia page claims that she has, and I have removed middle-men sources that were included on the page previously to instead show the first source that the previous sources were citing. Snooganssnoogans's opinion of my editing history is irrelevant. Their effort is clearly to try to keep the page on Eva Bartlett a low quality smear and attack page. Wikipedia should host neutral language and use first-hand sources wherever possible, and not spam the same low-quality sources after nearly every sentence even though they have little and often even entirely no relation to the Wikipedia page statement they're following. I invite all objective 3rd-parties to look at the page for Eva Bartlett, examine its citations, and see which is more suitable for Wikipedia standards and which is more informative and accurate. Nozoz (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that the subject is discussed in mainstream sources due to fringe stmts, we should avoid non-independent sources such as the subject herself.Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please review WP:USINGSPS, which says that a self-published primary source is the best source to use in the case of quotations: "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Please also review WP:USEPRIMARY, which says the same thing of primary sources: "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." It is impossible for a secondary source to be more accurate than the primary source for a quote because at best a secondary source is perfectly copying the primary source. And so, the primary source is the source all the same. Therefore, the primary source is the ideal source for a quotation, which is why Wikipedia guidelines say so. Nozoz (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is Nozoz again. I would also point out that Gråbergs Gråa Sång's claim about how I have changed the the introduction of the page, using incomplete quotes, is a major misrepresentation. After my changes the introduction still shows almost all the same information, but presented in a fashion that is more accurate and which isn't obviously intending to smear, while any remaining information is still talked about in its appropriate sub-section. And in addition to presenting the same information in an objective manner, I have added a lot more information about Eva Bartlett's background to the introduction. In reality, it has gone from: "Eva Karene Bartlett is a Canadian activist and blogger who covers the Middle East, particularly Palestine and Syria.[1] She writes op-eds for the Russian-funded television network RT.[2][3][4] Bartlett describes herself as an "independent writer and rights activist."[5] She is known for her advocacy in support of the Assad regime, and for promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos." - - From that, before my edits, to: - - "Eva Karene Bartlett is a journalist and activist who was born in Michigan, USA, but grew up in Ontario, Canada, and holds dual-citizenship for both Canada and the US. She was an Honours student in high school. She went to university in New Brunswick, though she also spent a year as an exchange university student in Strasbourg, France. Before becoming a journalist, Eva did various volunteer and teaching work.[1] Eva Bartlett's journalism activities cover the Middle East, Venezuela, and particularly Palestine and Syria. Bartlett publishes articles on her own website where she describes herself as an "independent writer and rights activist".[2] She also has her journalism published in news outlets such as RT, MintPress News, 21stCenturyWire, and others. She is known for reporting on-location about the Syrian Civil War, Israel's occupation of Palestine, the crisis in Venezuela, and for her criticism of the White Helmets." Nozoz (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll just state the obvious: Bartlett is not a "journalist" by any stretch of the imagination. Her sole claim to fame per all reliable sources is running pro-Assad disinformation about the Syrian Civil War. Your changes scrubbed all RS content and descriptions of her, and now instead portrays her as a widely published journalist who is renowned for on-the-ground war reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The only issue I see in the current version (which I assume is Snooganssoogans' version) is stating "Russian-funded" about RT. That's coatracking an issue that doesn't need to be called out. Everything else seems to be properly representative of the text of the article. The "changed" version is far too non-representative of the body. --Masem (t) 17:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Snooganssnoogans's previous claim, that is an accusation charged with bias and emotion, and which admits and that you take issue with basic facts being presented if they don't serve to smear Eva Bartlett. Whether you like what she reports or not, Eva is a journalist per the definition of the word, and is titled as such by the various outlets her works are published on. It is fact that Eva is published on many outlets, and the ones I have listed are but a few of the over-a-dozen that she is published on. She is certainly known for her on-the-ground war reporting, and on-the-ground and front-lines war reporting is what she does, and has done in Gaza, in Syria, and in other places. Your claim that Eva's "sole claim to fame per all reliable sources is running pro-Assad disinformation about the Syrian Civil War" is entirely false. If that's what you think, then you aren't someone who pays attention to her reporting, but only to detracting articles about her. You're trying to make the page just a flagrant attack and smear piece about Eva, and not an actual biography about her. Nozoz (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the older introduction contains a falsehood when it says that Eva Bartlett is known for "promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos." White Helmets are in-fact known to have both staged rescues, and to have reused the same people in their rescue efforts. And there is no confirmation that Eva's claim that WH have reused children in rescue footage is false. So, the older introduction was asserting things that are not known to be fact. And such things shouldn't be asserted on a Wikipedia page. The topic of Eva's claim on the subject and the criticism she has received, and the counter-criticism she and others have made in response to that criticism are talked about in depth in the sub-sections of the Wikipedia page. Since it is a controversial subject and not one that people are agreed on, saying that "she is known" for that is basically ignoring the reality-based picture to maliciously frame Eva as only her strongest critics label her. Nozoz (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Nozoz, I agree with the above (including with Masem, the "Russian-funded" bit is rather gratuitous and I'd be in favor of removing that). However, as to the rest, we should be citing the most reliable sources, and we should be primarily citing independent ones as well. That means sources written about her, not by her. Self-published sources can be used in certain limited cases, but never to support claims which might be controversial or in dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, when you say that you agree with the above, are you saying that you generally agree with what I wrote? Regarding reliable sources, the only places where I cited Eva Bartlett's own reporting is where she made the statements that the Wikipedia page claims she did, and regarding the period in which she reported from within Gaza. A primary source there is more suitable because secondary sources are only relaying that information from the primary source, such as by quoting Eva Bartlett, herself. Nozoz (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind that using neutral language is one of Wikipedia's 10 rules, and also one of its 5 pillars. The older version of the page isn't neutral about anything, but is deliberately using denigrating language and sketchy sources while omitting any information that might give a non-biased impression about Bartlett, or which is presented in a neutral language. The older version of the page is simply there to attack and smear, violating Wikipedia's rules. Regarding Masem's comment, a biography is, of course, a biography, and not an exercise in saying everything twice. If the introduction should describe the sub-sections more identically, then the sub-sections can be adjusted to feature the same information. Snooganssnoogans's version contains false information, citation spamming (the same citations that often have no relevance to the statements they follow is used many times throughout the page, to no good purpose). Wikipedia's Rule 9 says "Write neutrally and with due weight". The older version of the page isn't neutral about anything. Being neutral is one of Wikipedia's 10 rules, which state, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Nozoz (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I very clearly was not agreeing with you. We should not primarily be citing sources by Bartlett, but instead use material written about Bartlett by reliable, independent sources. (Also as an aside, we refer to an individual by first and last name on first mention, and last name only thereafter). As to the rest, which particular sources do you consider "sketchy", or what text do you consider to not accurately represent the cited source? Without specifics, that doesn't mean much. And yes, the lead should indeed summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Everything in the lead should be a summary of what the reader may expect to find expanded upon in the body. But no, primary sources are absolutely not more suitable, we always prefer reliable secondary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

To some extent, using material that she wrote about her background from her SPS is fine to flesh out her background, as long as we stick to the usual types of bio stuff (where born, what schools, etc.) But this absolutely cannot overwhelm what secondary reliable sources have written about her. The SPS can supplement, but cannot be the focus. --Masem (t) 18:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I would say that supplementing (by briefly mentioning birthplace and citizenship [basic biographical details], schooling, and occupation before journalism) and not overwhelming is what I achieved with my edits. Do you agree? Nozoz (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That stuff is fine - in the body. not the lede. --Masem (t) 18:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Then the solution is not to revert that information, but to move it to the body. Nozoz (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there can be no question that the older version of the page violates every part of Wikipedia's 2nd pillar WP:5P2, which says, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view - We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

The older version of Bartlett's page is not in an impartial tone, doesn't feature accurate information but false and unproven assertions. It is advocating for the critics view of Bartlett, and it doesn't present facts and views that challenge the fierce-critic viewpoint. It doesn't have verifiable accuracy, and it doesn't use authoritative sources as it uses secondary sources for Eva's own quotes that original from her articles and interview. It is loaded with personal interpretations and, as I've said, one-sided smear assertions and interpretations that WP:5P2 says do not belong. Nozoz (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, when quoting a person, a direct citation is more reliable than a secondary citation, and in WP:USEPRIMARY Wikipedia states a primary source is superior to a secondary source when presenting a direct quotation: "Primary" does not mean "bad" - "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. - Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.

So, my usage of primary sources for Eva's own quotes is the proper Wikipedia way.

Notice that the Wikipedia guidelines also say: "Secondary" does not mean "good" - "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published." Nozoz (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe we've clarified some things: Wikipedia WP:5P2 rules state that neutral language that reflects all significant views must be used (the older version of the page doesn't meet that standard). WP:USEPRIMARY states that primary sources are fine and are better for some things such as when citing a direct quotation. Bartlett is a professional on-the-ground war-zone journalist who is professionally credited as a journalist by the many news outlets her reporting is published in, and so that should be how she is described on her biography page. Bartlett's additional background information is relevant to her biography but should be moved to the body of the page.

Are there any further challenges people want to say before I implement my edits, to improve the accuracy and amount of information on the page and bring it into tighter conformity with the Wikipedia rules and guidelines? Icewhiz, Snooganssnoogans, Seraphimblade, Masem Nozoz (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The answer you've gotten has been a pretty clear "no". Pretending it was a "yes", and plowing ahead anyway, is not going to end well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, you are characterizing your claim about primary vs secondary sources, which is refuted by WP:USEPRIMARY, as if it is the answer voices by everybody, when it isn't. It's conclusive that your argument on that point doesn't stand as it is directly refuted by WP:USEPRIMARY, just as it is conclusive that my position and my edits surrounding that point are endorsed by WP:USEPRIMARY. The point about Bartlett's background details being useful but belonging to the page body has been agreed to by Masem. The point that Bartlett is a professional journalist who is published by many news outlets who credit her as a professional journalist is an incontrovertible fact to which there can be no disagreement or obstruction of, as outlined by WP:5P2 which prohibits personal interpretations and opinions. The language of the older version of Eva Bartlett's biography page violates WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:10SIMPLERULES, not just in the information that is presented but in failing to present the other views, as WP:5P2 requires: "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"". It's also clear that the older version of Eva's biography page violates WP:NPOV by using "judgmental language", by "stating opinions as facts", and by failing to "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views".

So, no, Seraphimblade, I have not gotten a pretty clear 'no', and your personal positions on the matter are squarely refuted by all of Wikipedia's rules, pillars, and posting guidelines. Saying they haven't been is simply admitting that you don't care what the rules are or what is neutral, fair, and accurate editing, and that you simply want to make Eva Bartlett's biography page not a biography page but an wildly inaccurate and biased hit-piece against her. That isn't acceptable by Wikipedia's rules. And your personal assertions and preferences do not overrule Wikipedia's rules.

So, are there any new, as-of-yet unaddressed challenges to my edits which are endorsed and protected by Wikipedia's rules, pillars, and guidelines? Nozoz (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the answer you've gotten has been a pretty clear "no". Pretending it was a "yes", and ploughing ahead anyway, is not going to end well. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

How so, Roxy, the dog., and by what authority do you see that "pretty clear 'no'" as coming from? Wikipedia's rules, pillars, and guidelines all endorse what I've argued. Icewhiz has agreed that primary sources are more appropriate for Bartlett's quotes, and Masem has agreed that Bartlett's background details are relevant but belong in the body of the page. WP:10SIMPLERULES, WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:USEPRIMARY all explicitly require that editing to be done in the manner that I have presented, using neutral language and preferring primary sources for quotations. Seraphimblade is not an overruling figure on these matters. So, where do you perceive a "pretty clear 'no'" to be coming from? Nozoz (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Umm, no. I did not agree. I reverted your edit. And we should generally avoid PRIMARY sources in BLPs - we should be using independent reliable secondary sources - which our subject's blog is not.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Then I misread your comment, Icewhiz. However, Wikipedia guidelines WP:USEPRIMARY state that a primary source is better than a secondary source for a direct quotation. There is no more reliable source for a person's own words than the person's own words made by them and where they first appeared. Secondary sources are quoting that primary source and are less reliable than the primary source. To represent the person's own words most faithfully it has to be cited from where they originally said those words - and that's what I've done. And that's what Wikipedia says is the best thing to do. Nozoz (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please review WP:USINGSPS, which says that a self-published primary source is the best source to use in the case of quotations: "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." So, that's another point on which Wikipedia guidelines explicitly endorse and reinforce my edits and what I've said about them. Nozoz (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking quotes from those guidelines to form a conclusion that directly contradicts their actual intended meaning. For example, also from WP:USINGSPS: Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available.. Also, see WP:ABOUTSELF, which explains that what a person writes about herself can only be used for basic, uncontroversial information. And more fundamentally, from WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So yes, self-published sources have their uses. But they should only be used sparingly, and only to supplement independent secondary sources, which make up the foundation of every article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Red Rock Canyon, I have not cherry-picked quotes from the Wikipedia guidelines to form a conclusion that contradicts their intended meaning. I have quoted them accurately and represented what they say precisely. However, you are cherry-picking and ignoring how Wikipedia rules and guidelines fit together. WP:RS says, as you've quoted, that a non self-published source is "usually", not always, preferred, and that "there are exceptions", without making any specific comment about quotations. Quotations are addressed in WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:USESPS, which both explicitly state, "Sometimes, a self-published / primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Do you read that? A primary and self-published source is "the best possible source" when it is the original document a quotation originates from - as is the case with Eva Bartlett's quotes on her biography page. Therefore, Wikipedia rules and guidelines explicitly endorse and protect my argument and my edits, and they refute what you have argued. And you're literally taking Wikipedia guidelines out of context to argue a conclusion that contradicts what they actually say. Also, a quotation of a person is an uncontroversial usage of a primary and / or self-published source as that primary and / or self-published is the original quote in its original form, and any form other than the form which they present it is in not their quote. Nozoz (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, policy and guidelines are not hard fast rules (outside of specific parts of BLP, NFC, and COPYVIO), they are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive. The parts of policy/guidelines you are quoting are clearly meant as more exceptional cases, and not the typical requirements (that being, secondary, third-party reliable sources and not an SPS).

More problematic here is that clearly she is a controversial figure for her views on certain conspiracy theories. In such a case, it is not appropriate to use her words over what secondary sources say, unless specifically her words are necessary to counter accusations made against her. Otherwise, we're basically allowing anything that a BLP says in a SPS to be included without contest. Her basic facts - up through her education - that's non-controversial stuff, but this is where claims that she is a journalist and the like come into question. ANYONE can be claimed to be a journalist if they publish a news-y like article to a blog, but we need to use what reliable sources say about her, not what she says about her. --Masem (t) 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not accurate, Masem. Eva Bartlett is professionally credited as a journalist by the news outlets she has her work published in. And going by any English dictionary you choose to look the word "journalism" up in, Eva Bartlett is a journalist. Wikipedia WP:5P2 explicitly forbids "personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions", which is what you or anyone claiming Eva Bartlett isn't a journalist is doing in the face of the fact that she is professionally credited as a journalist by many news outlets, some which are listed in the edits I made to her biography page. WP:5P2 is not a guideline, but is a core principle. Now, there is no basis for your argument that it is not appropriate to use Bartlett's own quotation in its original form and place over a secondary source that is merely reporting what the primary source says. It is also entirely illogical to claim otherwise. Also, when you say, "Keep in mind, policy and guidelines are not hard fast rules", the rational, objective application of the guidelines favours what I've said, as do the literal written word of what the guidelines say. It invalidates all challenges to my edits to claim they violate such-and-such when the truth is that it is the arguments against my edits and the older text for the page that violates those rules... and then when that's pointed out irrefutably then the people violating those rules appeal to 'well, the rules and guidelines don't actually matter' - I disagree with that, but if that's the way you want to argue things then you have no argument against my edits to begin with. What we have here are edit trolls who are defying every bit of reason, of truth, of fairness, and Wikipedia's rules, principles, and guidelines to try to keep Eva Bartlett's page a flagrant example of WP:ATTACK, with false statements and unsupporting citations, with low quality citations, with missing information, and with egregiously one-sided perspectives. Everything you group of edit trolls is arguing is against every level of Wikipedia's rules, principles, and guidelines, and is spiting the truth to spread disinformation and propaganda Nozoz (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It's original research for us to use a dictionary definition to call someone a journalist. And if she's being called a journalists by the sources that are publishing her material, those are not independent sources, so that begs those into question, and we have to defer to what reliable sources say. And no, its not an attack page, though I do think some tone fixes are necessary. Bartlett's notability seems to be based on how her views and her written pieces promote certain conspiracy-like theories, so unfortunately, her article is going to end up having negative information about her, but that's not against BLP when that is reliably sourced. Yes, we should also include any non-contentious background like her schooling/etc., but we cannot whitewash the criticism she has gotten. --Masem (t) 16:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please drop the mental gymnastics. They aren't making the trolling and lies look any better and they aren't fooling anybody. It's not original research to use word according to its literal English definition in every dictionary there is - what you've just claimed is as if I were to say we cannot include any word on any Wikipedia page because all of those words are based on definitions in the English language, and holding to a definition constitutes original research. It's entirely an absurd and nonsensical claim. The edits I made to Eva's page did not whitewash anything, and included the criticisms - but in neutral language while also presenting the other views and responses to said criticism, as Wikipedia's principles and guidelines direct to be done. Bartlett's notability is different things to different people, and Wikipedia rules say to include the different views on a topic and not just one. What you and others are doing is shielding the page from neutral language and from reflecting all views rather than just the one of a clique of dishonest trolls. The "biography" page of Eva Bartlett, as it currently stands, is not a biography but a WP:ATTACK page. Nozoz (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not. It's understanding that when someone is considered a controversial figure, we have to stick to reliable sources. No RS calls her a journalist, and the only ones that do are those that she writes for. We cannot say this in wikipedia voice. And you cannot create a false balance of cover for weak RS, outside of any statements she has made to counter claims made against her. --Masem (t) 20:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Eric Francis

There are NPOV and BLP issues with Eric Francis. Someone is taking sides and biasing the discussion. This is so biased as to be obvious revenge editing. In articles cited, many more facts are given than are being allowed into the piece. No outcome to the investigation was published. There is no basis to compare this person to Harvey Weinstein, when he was accused of things like asking to pet a dog. Just the mere comparison poses problems, and is strictly a matter of opinion not supported by the underlying secondary source. Many subjects are left out, including the fact of a professional investigation, which is covered extensively in both Kingston Times and Chronogram, with the odd twist that the results are confidential. Therefore they cannot be concluded to convict the subject of the article. There is no mention that the subject has challenged all of his former employers in discrimination cases. As written, this article qualifies as gossip with the fig leaf of footnotes to secondary sources that it misuses or misinterprets. https://medium.com/@ericfranciscoppolino/hey-wikipedia-about-your-biographical-guidelines-c1c167561ab1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1106:55:1043:ae5d:c4b2:6ef0 (talk)

• I removed a blurb on the current astrologers - diff, as well as the tie-in to Weinstein (which was unsupported by the citation) - diff - leaving "In July 2018, following sexual misconduct allegations against Francis, he was dismissed from several media outlets". Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "comes in the midst of an ongoing #metoo campaign" is in Part II of that article, for which a citation did exist in an earlier version of the article. It makes no direct link to Weinstein, although the article does mention Weinstein, but from my reading the link to #metoo is agreed by everyone. It's right there in that Medium piece, too. Uncle G (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• In terms of additional BLP questions - is Hudson Valley One a RS for BLPs? This is what the lead and section on #meToo is essentially sourced to. Aside from HV1, we have Chronogram description of why he was let go - [4], and 3 very long posts by Francis himself on ericfrancis.com (so OK for ABOUTSELF, but one would assume they are quite defensive I'd think) - leaving most of the section sourced to HV1. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll further note that I have attempted to look for sources - however all I've been able to find is Chronogram (a local magazine) letting the subject go (as a result of a confidential investigation) - [5] and the aforementioned HV1 report (WP:BLPSOURCES?). Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • HV1 is, it claims, an on-line compilation of the contents of several regional newspapers, including the Kingston Times. The article at hand apparently was in the Kingston Times. We know this not least because of the efforts of 69.206.34.100 (talk · contribs) and KingstonJournalist (talk · contribs) to make the front page of the 2018-07-19 issue of the Times be an illustration for this article. (See also commons:Project:Deletion_requests/File:Kingston-times-2018-07-19.png.)

      Adding to the furore is that several of the IP addresses — including 69.206.34.100, 2604:2000:1106:55:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs), 2604:2000:2707:3900:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs), 2604:2000:1106:21ac:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs), and 2604:2000:1106:310:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) — geolocate to Kingston. This isn't "hey Wikipedia, your article". This is just Kingston people editing Wikipedia, seemingly from both sides. Also note that Kuku777 (talk · contribs) and Dontmwt? (talk · contribs) both blanked the content as "defamatory" and "libelous" (sic) and the latter got blocked for "BLP violations".

      Then there's the legal threat …

      Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

      • Well - yes - the editing looks like a mess. It looks like it got edited in via editing requests, and then stuck at that state. In the Kingston Times (a local newspaper for a town of 20,000 souls) a source we should be relying on heavily for this sort of BLP content? Icewhiz (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Just found this, on subject's Pacifica affiliate website

http://chironreturn.org/audio/PRESS-RELEASE.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1106:21ac:6179:18a6:28a7:c20 (talk • contribs) 2019-07-28 18:20:43 (UTC)

• Uncle G, there isn't much for me to do here. The blocked account, which is about the only thing I can check, isn't connected to the IPs, though there's hella quacking there. The article is still a disaster; I think that entire section should be cut down to a sentence or two: there are charges, he was fired. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I took a butcher's cleaver to it - and cut it down to one line. I'll note a new editor - inserted this OR, which I removed as well. Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That is definitely not how to use that source. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jose Areas

José Areas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains a reference to the subject being a child molester. The reference is in the first line, very prominently displayed. The reference is not sourced and should be altered or removed if it cannot be sourced.

• UPI and SFGate from 1996 are sources (irregularly reffed). Rolling Stone in 2016 mentions this: [6].Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "arrested for", "suspicion of", "allegedy". Where is the source that says convicted of? This came up in /Archive207 in 2014, and no source saying that was proffered then, either. Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Icewhiz gets brownie points for the phrase "irregularly reffed". Uncle G, please fix your typo; I've lost all faith in you being perfect.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
      • The Santana IV article makes reference to a conviction based on a WP:PRIMARY source that seems dubious. YMMV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
        • ETA the reason I say the primary source is dubious is because Regalis Info Systems is a private company but doesn't make it clear that they aren't an arm of the US government on their website. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I've removed the child molester material from the article along with the unreliable source that supports it. That website is not a government website. Nor is it a reliable source. Notice it has no About section on it that explains what it is. It supposedly finds material on government websites, but such a site cannot be used to support criminal charges or convictions of BLPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
            • That seems like the wise course of action to me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Biswajit Chatterjee

• Biswajit Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Magnet for persistent disruption, introduction of unsourced content. I've requested a user block and page protection, but this could use weeding of unreferenced text and more eyes in general. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Jo Platt

An IP has repeatedly added promotional and non-neutral content to Jo Platt (a British Member of Parliament). I have removed it and attempted to explain why it cannot stand, but they have repeatedly put it back without discussion. I'm pretty sure they've read what I've said because when I pointed out they were referring to the subject by first name they promptly changed it. As it stands the article is a list of the subject's political activities as a member of HM opposition, presented in a non-neutral manner. I suspect close involvement with the subject (from the tone, references by first name). I have reverted three times so do not want to pursue this further - would an someone else care to take a look and see if they agree? Dorsetonian (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons on whether WP:BLPCAT's requirement of sourcing for sexual orientation should also apply to non-binary gender identities. Please participate there if you have an opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"Racial politics" claim in Ed Dwight

Ed Dwight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure about the last sentence of Ed Dwight#Pre-Astronaut training. Even though it's supported by a citation, it seems to be a pretty-loaded claim which might be more opinion than fact. Maybe it's something which should be WP:ATTRIBUTED, but I can't verify the source to see what was said and who said it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• This edit broke the links to the actual supporting source citations, by blithely overwriting them with the citation that I suspect was intended to instead support that added content. Fix that, and you and others should be able to find things more easily. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks you for finding that diff Uncle G. I tried to clean things up a bit to clarify that it was Dwight himself, not Wikipedia, claiming that "racial politics" played a role in his not being selected to be an astronaut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sultan Choudhury

Sultan Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person (Sultan Choudhury) is not notable at all, and there is a strong ground for the deletion of this article. He was sacked as a CEO of Al Rayan Bank due to serious issues, which was clear from the statement released by the bank employed him, and is no longer active or has any notable activities that may give merits for keeping this article. Thus, we strongly recommend deletion of this article.

https://www.alrayanbank.co.uk/useful-info-tools/about-us/latest-news/april-2019/al-rayan-bank-(uk)-ceo-to-step-down

The bank that employed him deleted any connection on the web of any kind with this individual due to serious concerns and conduct related issues. Being a CEO of a bank may was the reason for creating this article, although there is a strong argument that this is not a good reason that would warrant this or make him notable. Also, the article is poorly sourced. We believe there is no reason to keep this article as this person is dormant and has no relation to anything notable that would give a ground for keeping this article. Added at 11:08, 30 July 2019‎ by Majidii1234 (contributions)

I took a look at the material that Majidii1234 removed from the article. It appeared to be sufficiently sourced. I saw nothing that ran afoul of WP:BLP, and I restored the text accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If you think that the article Sultan Choudhury should be deleted, then argue this at "Articles for deletion". Here's how to do this. Cite policy! "This person is dormant" won't work: after all, Wikipedia has a huge number of articles about people who one might describe as terminally and irreversibly dormant, and is right to do so. ¶ I'm fascinated by your use of "we" (above, "We strongly recommend...", "We believe...", and also in this edit summary). How many of you are there? -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD: Nominated for deletion; The person is clearly not notable for this article to remain. There is a clear lack of objectivity in the article e.g. Career and Early Life. The quoted sources for such sections are very poor and not independent as they could be paid for to provide a feature, as clear in such media outlets. What is the relation of pilgrimage here, it is a bit dramatic rather than objective facts. Also there is not an independent reliable source about his involvement in advisory groups to government and other organisations. It is very bold claim without proof. This is not in accordance with WIKI policies. This article should be seriously considered for deletion as it violate various Wiki's criteria. I have to disagree with the comment above about restoring the deleted parts and the reliability of sources for this article. It takes a few thorough objective and independent checks to conclude that this article should be deleted. Added at 13:35, 30 July 2019‎ by Majidii1234 (contributions)

Above, Majidii1234, I wrote argue this at "Articles for deletion". Not here but there. And I gave you a link to instructions on how to do this. So go ahead and do it there, as the instructions tell you. ¶ No word on how many there are of you? -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

D Raja

D. Raja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) D Raja is the general secretory of Communist party of India and member of Rajyasabha. He is a hindu dalit. His full name is Doraisamy Raja. Doraisamy is his father's name. It is evident from the links given in the reference section of the article.

But some persons from his opposition party (BJP) is trying to edit that information, to change his name to Daniel Raja. Daniel is a christian name. This is a political attempt from them to make others misunderstand him as a converted Christian. Since BJP is a hindu fundamentalist party, their supporters always paint their opposition party leaders as "Anti-Hindu". I request wikipedia to take care of this issue and prevent such unethical edit attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bency4578 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have looked into this and confirm all sources I checked either call him Doraisamy Raja [7] [8] [9] or D. Raja [10] [11] [12] with one behind a paywall (although our title for that article mentions Doraisamy albeit it seems different now) [13]. No source mentions Daniel. I also had a quick search and cannot find any source supporting the Daniel name. (The closest I found is stuff like this [14]) Let alone support for claims made in these edits [15]. I therefore strongly suspect that the OP is right and this is some sort of politic and ethnic-religious hit job. For this reason, I have warned everyone who has added the Daniel name in the past week or so with an only warning for BLP violations. I will also be requesting page protection. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW User:Bency4578, while I agree with that these edits are unacceptable, please take care with your comments as well. The problem is the people who make these edits, not all BJP supporters. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• As warned, I have just revoked Ashwin83tcr (talk · contribs)'s editing privileges. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Renjith24 (talk · contribs) has done nothing but name change vandalism (in Malayalam) across multiple articles, so that account has lost its editing privileges as well. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Geeksh (talk · contribs) is an inactive vandlism-only account, so I have not bothered with it. Abhi3737 (talk · contribs) was already warned by Nil Einne, so let's see whether that person goes back to xyr more productive ways of yesteryear. Sreekumarpillai1978 (talk · contribs) has not edited since being warned by Nil Einne. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Gary Graffman and other articles with similar content added

Gary Graffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jascha Brodsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lara St. John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An edit I made yesterday to a BLP based on a major news article in the Philadelphia Inquirer was undone by another editor. I reinstated it, as it seemed fair and relevant to me. I then added another reference for the same news story. The same editor then undid that reference, claiming it linked to a biased blog post. It was clearly NOT a biased blog post, or I would not have referenced it. It was from a news site called ludwig-van.com that receives funding from the government of Ontario. I understand that news stories related to the #metoo movement are potentially controversial, but I have attempted to approach the topic in a factual and non-inflammatory manner. The reversions of the article appear to me to be motivated by a desire to whitewash this particular BLP.

@Deckoffa: I have removed the information from the Graffman article, along with several other articles where you have added virtually identical information. This is a serious BLP violation, and if you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the edits, but would note that Jascha Brodsky is deceased for over 20 years now so long past WP:BDP. Therefore BLP would only concern anyone else caught up such as the person mentioned above or any one else involved including accusers. This doesn't mean we should only poorly source material even if there are no BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How is a major investigative story from The Philadelphia Inquirer an example of poor sourcing? I don't believe I have violated any of WP's policies, including WLP policies. It appears to me that deleting any reference to this major news story suggests people are trying to whitewash the subjects of these articles. I have not been involved in any controversy on this website before now, so I will not be surprised if you figure out a way to boot me, but you are not accurate in describing your actions as a reflection of WP's stated policies.Deckoffa (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a link that shows an editor referring to a biased blog post? Please give a careful read to WP:BLP before you resume your efforts here. I also note that OP has inserted similar content into several other articles. I've reverted those edits. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a heavy WP editor. But I have plenty of experience in academic sourcing, and I have not provided references to any blog posts of any kind. Do the BLP rules also prevent anyone from editing the Curtis Institute article? I did not realize Bbb23 was an administrator, but I still believe he or she should reconsider these reversions. I didn't even make the edits to the Jascha Brodsky page, so I'm getting the impression someone is simply motivated to erase this news item from WP. That does not seem appropriate to me.Deckoffa (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This Noticeboard page allows you to make policy-based arguments that, if persuasive, will gain consensus for your views and editorial decisions. So please make good use of this page and please do not squander the attention of the community by making irrelevant personal remarks about yourself or other editors. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The edits are based on a reliable source, but seem largely WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" as per WP:NOTNEWS. We are not meant to collect news stories but rather to provide an encyclopedic overview of an article subject. Graffman does not appear to have a major involvement in the issue, and the edits also seem to imply some kind of misconduct. The info does not seem appropriate for inclusion in the subject's biography. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the information is undue or falls under the "notnews" heading. #Metoo cases are pertinent biographical and institutional information, and the news involved does not consist of "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities." WP's article on UCLA contains information on last year's news story about sexual harassment on campus. The Duke University article describes the rape accusations involving the lacrosse team, properly noting that they were ultimately deemed to be false. These are major news stories, not minor gossip. If the charges are proven to be false, then the articles may be updated appropriately as the information becomes available.Deckoffa (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 asked me to have a look at this matter. I agree, first of all, with Wallyfromdilbert's comments related to the Graffman article ("no major involvement"), and I just mentioned this on my talk page, where I pinged Deckoffa with a note of caution. (Deckoffa, no need to comment there unless you just want to say "OK"; let's keep this here.) I do not agree that NOTNEWS is in itself sufficient to keep this out; it is entirely possible that this warrants inclusion--it is serious enough, and the Philadelphia Inquirer a good enough source. It is also, of course, early in the cycle for this story: in that sense NOTNEWS does apply and should give us a reason to slow down.

But Lara St. John is of course crazy notable, and not having any mention of this in her own article does her tremendous injustice. User:SPECIFICO, I am sure you agree there should be a way to include this information in a concise and neutral way--without mentioning Brodsky, perhaps, at least for now (though I am actually leaning toward inclusion of that name, not just because he's been dead for so long). Certainly, though, we should mention the school where this (allegedly, OK...) took place, particularly in the light of this recent publication, which is published by The Strad, which seems a reliable enough source to me, and a neutral enough article. I cannot vouch for the other publications Deckoffa cited along the way in the various edits, nor do I want to look into them right now.

Deckoffa, I think I am known for adhering pretty strictly to the BLP and I am not hesitant to block for violations of it, but I am also very much in favor of us not trying to sweep things under the rug: after all, removing an accusation that has been credibly reported on is also, IMO, a violation of the BLP. I think you have a point, probably more than one, but I think you are not going about it the right way--that's fine, you are not as seasoned as some others. I urge all involved editors to look carefully at the material, to see what we can in good conscience include in which articles we should include what. As far as I'm concerned, for now Graffman is certainly out, but St. John and the Institute are certainly in, and Brodsky perhaps as well--though that may have to wait for further reporting, with more reliable sources. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I am really leaning toward mentioning this for Brodsky--"The Inquirer has located four other women who say that Brodsky pursued them sexually while they were Curtis students in the 1980s. Each asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy." And there is more coverage, as part of the fall out from this scandal, here for instance. This kind of stuff, the institute's response and the reactions to their initial response, are certainly worthwhile. I'm sure there will be more in days to come, so while I want to urge caution, and point to NOTNEWS, I do think we should not ignore this. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Drmies. That all sounds reasonable to me.Deckoffa (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

And thank you. Please don't think badly of the editors who reverted you: they did so in good faith, and in some cases I absolutely agree with them--as on some points I agree with you. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My comment was directed at the information added to the Graffman article, and I have not looked at how it would apply to other articles. I added the two other articles that have been discussed here to the beginning of the section above and updated the section header to provide more notice to other editors. I hope that is okay with everyone. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Three things:

• Deckoffa, as soon as someone reverted you, you started to say silly things in edit summaries about people wanting to ″stifle″ a ″major″ news story, and that Wikipedia editors were all working for … a U.S. music school. That's exactly the sort of overreaction that one gets from agenda-pushers, so you immediately triggered the response that agenda-pushers tend to get. Try to bear in mind that most people editing Wikipedia will not have ever heard of this, any of the people involved, or the news coverage thereof; any more than you will have heard of, say, I Monetary Advisory.
• Having read the Inquirer pieces, I have to agree that the Gary Graffman biography is really not the place for this, as there's really nothing (yet) to say about xem based upon the sources so far, two news cycles in, and what you did say was close to innuendo.
• I would definitely not have written things the way that you did. Readers need to know facts, not that a particular source was the front page of a newspaper, and the focus should be what was reported. In 2019, St. John made public for the first time her long-standing allegations that […] maybe, or some such. Explaining to Wikipedia editors the relevance, reliability, and depth of a source is what talk pages are for. Also remember that the Inquirer outright told you that some of the claims are disputed by the different parties. You wrote them as fact.

A rule of thumb: If you find yourself haranguing people in edit summaries, you are almost certainly doing things wrongly. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips, @Uncle G. Given the difficult subject matter, I understand someone quibbling with phrasing, but I did not write anything that could be described as libel or even innuendo. I restated the facts reported by the newspaper and described allegations as allegations. It remains the case that a major #metoo story involving Brodsky, St. John, Curtis, Graffman and Roberto Diaz has now been completely scrubbed from Wikipedia, and I don't think it's completely silly to be suspicious of the motivations for the scrubbing, particularly as WLP policies don't even apply in two cases out of five. Perhaps there is some more proper forum on WP for airing that suspicion -- I am not an expert on the site's etiquette -- but I do not agree that there is no cause for it. I believe there is plenty in this case that merits some talk among editors about the issues at hand, but it does not seem like a good outcome to expunge every reference to it on WP. Additionally it does not appear to me to be good etiquette to delete reasonable edits wholesale and provide bland technical assertions as the only justification. Nonetheless I would welcome a compromise. As @Drmies suggested, there will certainly be more to come on the story, and I expect it will make its way back into WP eventually, without any involvement on my part.

Please read and consider WP:DUE. You are correct, however, that if this belongs in the encyclopedia you will not need to be advancing it against a crowd of dissenting editors. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Jiang Zemin

Jiang Zemin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "background and ascendancy" contains some dubious sourcing from Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty Television, which are mouthpieces of Falun Gong and thus not neutral sources on the subject. --60.242.159.224 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• The epoch times and NTDTV are absolutely not under any circumstances reliable sources for statements of fact about Chinese leaders This is especially relevant when dealing with WP:BLP concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And there's a ton of other things that the Epoch Times shouldn't be used for--like comments about the media, for instance, given all their conspiracy theorizing. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and purged the epoch times and NDTV from the source list at Jiang Zemin retaining uncontroversial biographical details and deleting anything that has even the slightest whiff of contention. This is especially relevant with Jiang because, far more than Deng, Hu or Xi, he was the leader who oversaw the crackdown on the Falun Gong. The official mouthpieces of this millenarian new religious movement don't, as Drmies quite rightly said, have the best reputation for reliability at the best of times. When talking about the man who is arguably their greatest enemy, yeah, no. It's a BLP concern for sure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • ETA: Were this WP:RS/N I'd say that Epoch Times is never reliable and should be treated like Breitbart. As this is WP:BLP/N I will restrict myself to saying that it is not reliable for any uncontroversial statement regarding a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thayne McCulloh

The paragraph on the placement of priests accused of sexual abuse at Cardinal Bea House in Thayne McCulloh contains several statements that are not supported by a careful reading of the sources cited. This issue is very controversial and it needs more eyes and ears. Here is a relevant diff. I will give you just one example. The source cited to support the first sentence doesn't say anything about Gonzaga University having a role in the national Catholic sex abuse scandal. It just isn't there. You will find more such problems upon further examination. This needs more eyes and voices. Thanks. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The role Gonzaga played was as a place to quietly hide priests with a history of sexual abuse. The university campus was used as the setting for a retirement house to move perpetrators out of sight. That's the role GU played, as stated by copious sources. All parties agree on these facts. If your quibble is over the wording "McCulloh established a commission to investigate the University's role and actions", why not suggest changing it to "McCulloh established a commission to investigate the University's part in the..." or "the University's involvement in..."? Most people wouldn't see a meaningful difference in these phrases, but if one of them bothers you, why not try to collaborate to find a consensus? The first step in collaboration is to inform your collaborators what you would like to see done to in article.

When you say "this issue is very controversial", it gives me the expectation that you will then cite a source which disputes a fact. A controversy is a disagreement or difference of opinion, but what is under dispute? From what I can tell, the statements in the article are all agreed upon by all parties, the media, the university, McCulloh himself. The facts presented are uncontroversial, save for the question of whether McCulloh knew about the safe house for abusive priests. He says he didn't know, while the Spokesman-Review says staff and students say off the record that he did know. But the article doesn't mention these critics directly, and sticks strictly to telling McCulloh's side. McCulloh's words and actions are cast in a charitable light, and the article only mentions constructive things he has done, making no mention of things he may have been accused of or the opinions of critics. It's not an attack page. So what controversy?

More editor participation is welcome, but you have made no editing suggestions about the content of the article at Talk:Thayne McCulloh, only a lot of ad hominem about other editors. It's a bit premature to escalate an issue to a noticeboard before even stating once what changes you are asking to be made to an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ann-Marie Adams, American journalist

Could you please put "Howard University" on the knowledge panel? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:302:850:ce9:4058:2970:a288 (talk)

What is a knowledge panel? If you're referring to the Knowledge Graph on the right side of most Google Searches, or the similar panels on other search engines, Wikipedia has no control over that. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

Two of the first links in the introductory blurb are to op-eds sharply criticizing Tulsi Gabbard. I don't believe Wikipedia's role, as an encyclopedia, should be to offer two opinion pieces which have obvious and intentional bias about a living person. One article is literally titled "Tulsi Gabbard is Not Your Friend" and the other ends with "Tulsi Gabbard cannot be trusted."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.170.230 (talk)

I partially agree, and I have removed these from the lede. A case can be made that these are significant viewpoints that deserve mention, but two articles do not demonstrate they are so significant they belong in the top section. They would go down in the detailed discussion of her policy platform, which already contains some of this criticism. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Footballers

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Legal threat by User:Shangoman1964

• Cauley Woodrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Martin Patching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is years past time that people started using the article talk page here. Is this biographical information appropriate to include in these articles? Please discuss on Talk:Cauley Woodrow. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

theophile obenga

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.

Borče Sredojević

• Diff: here 1
• Diff: here 2

User keeps reverting poorly sourced information/statements. Article fails WP:V, with reference both inline and external links that are scarce, biased and unreliable for article on BLP: unreliable and biased (Sportlive.ba), extremely politically biased and slanted toward narrow local ethno-national subjects and perspectives (Glas Srpske), and self-published (Zerodic.com with sort of blog-like or forum-like discussions; also, affiliated article on alleged "national" team, which serves as a sort of background support for claims put forward here, is based on even weaker and fewer references, just two or three, one of which is another self-published mysterious "Non-FIFA News agency" which is private blog (last time they published in 2012 were hosted at blogger.com, defunct since that times, or changed hosting service)). I removed and rephrased the content so that can be verified with existing sources, but User:FkpCascais keeps reverting it while completely ignoring my Talk page discussion initiation, although they use it as a sort of diversion as they keep suggesting how I should use Talk page.

Also, User:FkpCascais also rationalize their revert only through edit-summary, but in dishonest and misleading manner, claiming alleged agreement on pushing ethnic adherence of persons (footballers, coaches, etc.) into the lead of Bosnia (and/or Balkan) football and sport BLP's, which is untrue and simply unacceptable as it would mean that editors can go against Wikipedia guidelines, namely WP:OPENPARA, WP:Lead, MOS:BLPLEAD and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players MOS, just to conform with Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak, Albanian, or any other editors' ethnic and/or national(ist) feelings and reflexes.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais, what say you? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais's topic ban from the Balkans was just lifted by Sandstein in June. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, User:FkpCascais is mostly fixated on my inner motives, intimate thought processes and personality, complaining about it by putting forward various innuendos and mind-reading recapitulation - allow me to say, their only arguments are ad-hominem - which they posted everywhere else except on disputed articles Talk pages - so they remark here that I hold "strong feelings" against one of the administrative entities in Bosnia, and "trying to discredit and erase everything related to it", while user complains how they themselves and their fellow "Serbian editors are a but tired of that attitude against our articles, template and categories, etc."(!?). Similarly, they than turned to what they perceive a "friendly" sysop with the following incredible complaint-pleading. However, user started "resolving" dispute by discarding WP:GF completely, and making strange remarks and requests like here and here. For entire duration no input was given at any of disputed articles TP by user, although he gladly suggest that to me, I guess to discuss things there with myself - to which user replied in edit-summary, again, while reverting yet again, that there is no problem with references whatsoever and proceeded to discuss this matter on, to me, a random sysop (linked above), which I found accidentally.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I answered on the talk-page of the article. The editor is removing perfectly fine sourced information just because deals with an issue he wants to see erased Republika Srpska official football team. If the editor wants to see the article deleted, he should make a proper RfD before going around erasing information from individual articles, and calling perfectly fine sources unreliable just because they deal with something he unfortunatelly dislikes. I believe the user should be warned not to erase sourced information like that. FkpCascais (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And no, that is not ad hominem, I just speak streight without pretending anything. This is currently a highly politicized matter in Bosnia, there is a tendency ammong nationalist Bosniaks to consider anything regarding Republika Srpska as "offensive". Well, I am sorry, this is not Bosnia, this is English-language Wikipedia, and we should keep neutrality above anything here. FkpCascais (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User assumes a lot, and all to often brings misleading claims into debate, instead of focusing on contentious matters and given arguments, such as usage of unreliable and biased sources for BLP. Everything I did can be easily checked in "diff's". Now I'm going to try and clarify some more:

- locally based and ideologically driven media outlet, run by unique identity group exclusively, which is closely affiliated to local-entity government, ruling party and its boss, whose separatist rhetoric is naturally mirrored for decades in this media outlet, which is disturbing enough matter for international community and its representatives in Bosnia-Herzegovina can't be considered reliable and neutral - in other words, everything they write should be taken with a grain of salt size of a mountain

- another unreliable source, an obscure sport portal is used - of all Balkan's high-quality sport portals editor(s) includes this website because it confirms its article claim, which can't be found anywhere else - and as the article claim itself is extraordinary so it demands high-quality source, not some obscure Internet site;

- but even if we agree to use this obscure sport site, and this biased and ideologically driven media outlet, and if they are really giving us neutral and reliable information which can be used to confirm and verify these particular article statements, than, it shouldn't be problem to find same information in all those high-quality media outlets too, or at least these information should be widely disseminated through other media as well, if they are really valid (notable and verifiable) editors should be able to find some and put in the article next to one which are contentious.

But trouble is there are no other sources for such information whatsoever, whether low or high-quality, and that's why User:FkpCascais focus on me - giving us lessons in history, ethno-nationalism, politics, assuming a lot on my own privacy, what is or may be my identity, knows my feelings, my personality, what I think, what I'm gonna do, and than tries to use that against me, instead of focusing on searching for quality sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Santa, so after all, I was right, the only thing that mattered to you regarding that article was really his link with Republika Srpska official football team, both as player back in 1992, and his nomination for main coach in 2008 (your edit). At that time he was just another in your list of targets, as you did the same at Stojan Malbašić and Vlado Jagodic. Your goal was to empty the categories so you could further back up your proposal for deletion. That is dishonest, you should propose the deletion first, you know that very well, and not delete the category from all articles and then ask to delete it as useless.

Second thing, now that the article gained attention, seems so nice from you the effort you made to improve the article, thank you. However, you didn´t fixed the main problem, which is why you remove info about R. Srpska, and worste, you remove valid categories for which you still didn´t got the answer if are going to be deleted, or not. You should restore them, and wait.

Third thing, your personal opinion about Glas Srpske as source, based on your conspiracy theory about some political parties drama in Brcko (its in his comments at bottom of Talk:Borče Sredojević), misstrust in, how you call it, "boss" Milorad Dodik (he is the current president of Republika Srpska), and further claim that " Glas Srpske is the local ideologically driven media outlet, based in Srpska entity, and run by Serbs exclusively,..." is very anti-Serbian biased and really offensive. It could even make sense if we were talking about some highly disputed political issue, but we are talking sports, football. What are they, because they are Serbs, they are going to lie the result? Lie the name of the players? You went way beyond here. Republika Srpska is not only a totally legal democratic entity today, but you, from your perspective suggesting is some sort of North Korea is instane. Much more, again, speaking about only a football game. And yes, it was a game of Republike Srpska, obviously the best source for the line-up of the game will be a source from... R. Srpska (!?).

Fouth thing, me giving lessons on history? Yes, it was a game played in 1992, an era before internet, so obviously we don´t have all major international sports websites talking about it. Also, at that time, in 1992, that team played as a national team of an unrecongnised country, as one of many new teams comming out from what was ex-Yugoslavia, so the game by that gains much in importance giving its historical context.

Why don´t you say it streight? Your problem is with Republika Srpska, which has its Football Association of Republika Srpska and its team, Republika Srpska official football team. Instead of you going directly to the articles and provide your reasons why you think they should be deleted, you are going around deleting information about it from biographies, related articles and trying to erase related categories. It´s a no-no. FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And just to add one final important explanation, Republika Srpska official football team is one of the many teams from the Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA. When coaches are appointed to some of those teams, we add that information to the article, we add the participation of players in games of those teams, that information is valid per WP:FOOTY. You disliking one particular team and going around removing everything you can regarding it, is wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

For gazillionth time: you should focus on finding reliable and neutral sources not me and my prerogatives as your peer-editor, such as my right to dispute biased source - I hope that you read WP:Sources at least once to know that it's editors who question and establish source neutrality and reliability, not some invisible force. You should focus on my arguments, not on making allusions and insinuations about my preferences, and my intimate thoughts - because don't get me start about your own behavioral and POV pushing history regarding editing in Balkan scope and your treatment of fellow editors, I can shift my focus too, only that's won't improve my arguments one bit, neither will your focus on me and what may or may not be my inner drive or (dis)liking improve yours.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And since you are assuming and insinuating about my motives regarding questioning sources such as Glas Srpske, here's the most recent report on thorough research of Bosnia and Herzegovina media - Disinformation in the Online Sphere: The Case of BIH - created by main fact-checking organization Zastone.ba working in the region of former Yugoslavia (there are couple of these organizations, they are based in Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro - they cooperate really, really closely, share everything and often come out as one):

• in Briefing at china-cee.eu (PDF link is included at the page)
• same report on zastone.ba web-portal, here's direct PDF link: here's direct PDF link
• briefing at EU Bosnia (europa.ba) web portal with PDF link included: EU Bosnia

Report is just above 100 pages long, and here's two excerpts regarding Glas Srpske among few other outlets:

- The report on political disinformation in BIH specifically tracked down Russia`s state-run propaganda machine (such as RT and Sputnik) contributing to the influence campaign in BIH by serving as a source to SRNA (RS News Agency), RTRS (RS Radio-television), Glas Srpske (main public daily in RS) in distributing the most of political disinformation in BIH.

- The only exception is Bljesak, the one media from the Federation of BiH which remains in the large disinformation hub through strong connections with several media located in Serbia (Sputnik, Informer) and Republika Srpska (RTRS, Glas Srpske).

Here's connection between media outlets in Republika Srpska and ruling party SNSD and it's leader M.Dodik:

• Fact-checking organization Raskrinkavanje (partner of the above mentioned Zastone.ba) analysis: Krizni PR Dodika

--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Jo Swinson

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

Donald Trump

Donald Trump currently has a section that cites RS that describe various instances of his racist speech and promotion of racist narratives. It describes various public condemnations of same. The section is euphemistically entitled Racial views. Surely there's a better, more encyclopedic way of captioning that section for our readers.

Please help us find a better subheading at this talk page thread. As a side note, there's also an article called Racial views of Donald Trump that will eventually need a better title. In both cases, these uses of "views", in my opinion, are artifacts of an earlier time when RS reporting and public understanding of the matter were less clear. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They are still less clear and racist is still a value-laden label per WP:RACIST. Views are opinions not facts. It should be handled as allegations of racism, and if it's a news source, resist the urge to use it. Instead, go for higher quality academic sources, and cite the author making the claim using in-text attribution. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no real room for doubt here. Trump has been a racist all his life, after all, going right back to a "no blacks need apply" policy for his rental properties. Shithole countries, Muslim ban, Baltimore, "go back where you came from" (never aimed at anyone white), Mexicans are rapists - Trump's a racist, and a very large number of reliable sources say so. In fact he's a stereotype. Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week satirises the dislike of New Yorkers for Puerto Ricans. That song could be about him. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This ⬆. François Robere (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of ambiguity in this section title, and in the corresponding article title. First, nothing in the current text reflects any "racial views" expressed by Trump, except his blanket denial of being racist. We are mostly describing words and deeds of Trump that have been called racist by commenters. Consequently, either we call this "Allegations of racism" (focusing on opinions), or we call it "Racist speech and actions" (focusing on what Trump said and did). — JFG ^talk 16:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Albert Toney III

User named Daubje is repeatedly harassing Albert Toney III, a living person, by inserting an edit numerous times regarding a personal civil matter, not a person's accomplishments. It's frivolous information that has no reason to be in a living person's bio. Can we end this matter once and for all or does the edit have to be deleted every time they do it? AKT2vists (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)AKT2vistsAKT2vists (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Given a final warning on their talk page. I do note that if third-party RSes had noted the civil case against Toney (in a manner that made it DUE), but left out the resolution of the case, using court documents in that fashion is acceptable, But the civil case doesn't appear to have ever appeared in RSes, so it is correct to have it removed. --Masem (t) 21:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk: Brian Leiter

Could an experienced editor please take a look at these deletions made by @Philosophy Junkie: under the guise that they violate BLP and determine whether it was actually a violation of BLP policy?

Please note there have been previous issues on this page with editors deleting any non-positive statements on the subject and with this editor specifically blanking/deleting portion of the wiki that were considered RS.

Thanks, You May Call Me 24 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to be corrected by another editor. There are, however, plenty of critical comments about the subject on the talk page. I removed only a few phrases that seemed to imply misconduct by the subject (beyond the subject's rhetorical excesses) that did not appear to me to be supported by the sources and to violate BLP policy. User 24.217.247.41 is new to Wikipedia and has been at times unnecessarily hostile and accusatory of other editors. (So have some other users on the talk page.) I appreciate this user's input nonetheless, and encourage him to work cooperatively with other editors going forward.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with Philosophy Junkie's characterization of myself as hostile and point you to the following talk page where his first message to me was to incorrectly accuse me of a malicious edit.

His deletions of my comments on the talk page were described as "comparable to censorship" by @JaventheAlderick: but have yet to been restored. Based on Javen's feedback on that page I will restore my comments, although I believe PJ (or possibly Javen) should have restored them right away once he realized they were not violations of BLP policy. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

____

References

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

• Meghan Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Julie Bindel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Janice Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mermaids (charity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.[16] 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.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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)

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)

• 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".[17] 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 --Fæ (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. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 3 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. --Fæ (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You like to assume the worse, huh? I responded, at my talk page[18], 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? --Fæ (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 --Fæ (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 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 3 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?

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)

• UnitedStatesian, Masem, Seraphimblade, SportingFlyer, Slatersteven, Softlavender, and BrownHairedGirl, it's good that you are for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE. Milowent says "we are going to reflect what reliable sources use." Wugapodes says, "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." And I think that what Wugapodes says is reasonable, and is the correct course. This is what ThoughtIdRetired and Colin M were seekin' at Talk:Mermaids (charity). This is what Crossroads1 is for. This is what Rhinocera and EllsworthSK were seekin' at Talk:TERF. This is what Rhinocera was seekin' at the Meghan Murphy page. The intro there now, thanks to Rhinocera, says, "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.[19] That follows WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE.

• 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."[20] 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." 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."[21] 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."[22] 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."[23] 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?"[24]

• 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?[25][26][27][28] 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.[29]. 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.[30][31]. 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 Fæ 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.[32] 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. --Fæ (talk) 07:54, 4 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. --Fæ (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? --Fæ (talk) 09:10, 4 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 --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 4 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 --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 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. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_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 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 nationalist" 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)

Jan T. Gross

Jan T. Gross is a renowned Polish-American historian writing on World War II and the Holocaust. His book "Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland" is considered a landmark in Polish historiography, and has been cited more than 900 times. The book "Golden Harvest: Events at the Periphery of the Holocaust", which is the subject of the following interview, has been cited more than 90 times.

The following was added by an editor[33] (and restored by another editor[34]) under the "controversies" section in the BLP's article:

In 2011 Gross stated that he "doesn't care" if the Jewish civilian losses in Poland by Poles were 100,000 or 200,000 because it is "high enough", however he stated that several tens of thousands is "easy to justify"[35]

It is a trimmed, out of context cherry pick meant to depicts Gross as an apathetic and amateurish hack. The editor admitted as much in the TP: "I don't have particular strong opinion on [which translation to use], as long as... the fact that he doesn't care for numericall accuracy is included."[36] This latter bit is also SYNTH, as there's no discussion of his "accuracy" or of a "controversy" in the source.

In context, Gross reads quite differently: after giving his mission statement as a historian ("to convey... the truth about that historical time... [to] write about matters that have been missing from the historiography until now"), and denying that he writes to "shock" Poles ("I'm a historian. I wanted to contribute [to] the [knowledge] of Polish-Jewish relations, which is lacking. As far as I can tell, people are interested"), he is asked the following:

Q: In the first draft of the book you wrote that Poles killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Jews. You eventually changed it to several tens of thousands. Why?
A: I believe this sort of numerical description of the Holocaust is the wrong way to go about it; I [only] write these numbers because I know my readers expect them. In reality it's all the same whether I write it was one or two hundred thousand, or tens of thousands - both are significant. The first version appeared at an early stage when I sent the book to [other] experts for assessment; I believe this number fits better, but "several dozens [of thousands]" is easier to justify.

Your opinions, please. François Robere (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOENG, as Gross (a leading American scholar in the field for over 50 years) has given a multitude of of interviews to top tier mainstream English language outlets - including on this very subject - there is no need to use a non-English interview (of lesser or equal quality) - as better English language interviews are available. And yes - the interview reads differently from the out of context use of it.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of article on BC trans waxing case

There is an open deletion discussion on an article that deals with the same BCHRT case that was the subject of a thread here last week. Outside input is welcome (I'm just throwing a notification of here instead of pinging everyone) Nblund ^talk 16:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail on BLPs

How come there are almost 1000 BLPs which use the Daily <Mail as a reference? --174.254.66.213 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}? Guy (Help!) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Easily said. What about Softlavender restoring them? Currently at AN/I. My goodness, you have some problems in your community. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts should not be removed simply because they are cited to the DM. You may replace the citation if you find another that covers all of the cited material, but statements cited to the DM should not be removed unless they are clear-cut gossip or irrelevant trivia. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." If you add that to WP:BLP, a delete on sight approach is not unreasonable, but of course it's better to try to find a good source first. Restoring deleted DM stuff would seem to fall under WP:ONUS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That seems obvious to me. In practice, we have an editor restoring multiple swathes of garbage sourced to this poor source, without demonstrating any onus, and (so far) without facing any sanction. Most of the material is still there. Very poor. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Left hand, meet right hand: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Softlavender. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail on the Daily Mail

A while back on the talk page, a former WMF Audit Committee / Wikimedia Nederlands board member posted a link to the Google notification that the article had been partially de-referenced. It turns out that this is related to a lawsuit Carina Trimingham lost (cf. [37]). In that decision, the judge said that "his judgment was not a licence 'to repeat the words complained of indefinitely or in any circumstances', as it was not a libel action in which a defence of truth had been proved." (source) Still, it's interesting that Google is substituting its enforcement power to that of a UK judge. Should en.wp remove the Daily Mail article mentioning Trimingham in the entry? Should it include the Daily Mail's comment on their ban from en.wp? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Using the Daily Mail for words directly attributed to the work or from its staff to support articles that are about the DM or events they have been involved beyond a media participant is fine. This is akin to BLPSPS - we normally would avoid a bad SPS but allow the BLP's own SPS where quoting them is appropriate for inclusion. --Masem (t) 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest using this source:

Mayhew, Freddy. "Wikipedia ban condemned by Daily Mail as 'cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press'" Press Gazette, 10 Feb 2017

• Suggested edit:

The Mail responded by stating: "It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia – a website that is notorious for its own inaccuracy and false truths, and which was co-founded by a man who doctored his own biographical entry." Hillbillyholiday, who initiated the discussion which led to the ban, admitted to "using Mail-style tactics of blatant sensationalization [sic] and flagrant misrepresentation of sources," adding that it, "seemed rather ‘poetic’ at the time."

Seems reasonable? 3 WAY WIKI ROSS (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How's about just "The Mail responded by stating: "It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia – a website that is notorious for its own inaccuracy and false truths, and which was co-founded by a man who doctored his own biographical entry."??? Also, is it a BAN? Or just an instituted policy not to use the DM as a single source for information for BLPs? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard again

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)